First, really glad to see that Nebraska ad informing voters exactly how to restore abortion rights in the state. Absolutely necessary, given that state officials intentionally designed the ballot and the competing ballot measure to be misleading!
Second, Mike Braun’s senate campaign ought to be required to broadcast messages that correct the false claims contained in his ads that use manipulated images. Furthermore, those corrections should be required to have equivalent media placement and airtime.
Third, yesterday, someone here made the claim that the head of The International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) is MAGA. I have not seen any reports indicating this. If true, I hope someone will provide a link.
I saw that. But unless I misunderstood that endorsement was this summer, and there was a hint that the ILA had a change of heart. I’ll be relieved to hear this is not the case.
The confusion is that the poster from yesterday's down ballot had the wrong Union; as far as I can tell this Union (ILA) hasn't endorsed nationally this year(perhaps knowing that a strike may come into play)
A new Cook Political Report Swing State Project Survey conducted by BSG and GS Strategy Group (September 19-25; 2,941 voters), shows Vice President Kamala Harris leading or tied with former President Donald Trump in all but one of the seven battleground states. Overall, she holds a narrow lead of 49% to 48% in a two-way matchup.
Harris has a lead within the margin of error in Arizona (+2), Michigan (+3), Nevada (+1), Pennsylvania (+1), and Wisconsin (+2). Trump is ahead 49% to 47% in Georgia, and the two candidates are tied at 49% in North Carolina.
Democrats have 13-point leads in both Arizona, where Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego is leading former gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake 54%-41%, and Nevada, where Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen leads former Army Captain Sam Brown 53%-40%.
Democratic Sen. Bob Casey leads his Republican opponent David McCormick by seven points, 52%-45%, in Pennsylvania.
Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin leads her GOP opponent, former Rep. Mike Rogers, by four points — 50%-46%
In Wisconsin, Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin leads Republican businessman Eric Hovde by only two points, 49%-47%, down from a seven point lead in our last survey.
All of the Democratic Senate candidates have greater leads that Kamala Harris does.
The high degree of political polarization means fewer voters split their tickets. Does this not mean we will see a meaningful degree of convergence between the Senate and Presidential races in most states? If so, the question is whether Harris is more likely to overperform her polls, or the Dem Denate candidates underperform.
Wisconsin is just one exception. Of course there will be divergence; the question is whether there will be a convergence relative to the polls – and, if so, whether it is mostly our Presidential or Senate candidates that move.
There has been a pretty consistent 4-5 point difference in Baldwin’s favor in previous WI polls. This is one of the only polls from any state showing alignment between the Presidential and Senate numbers that I can recall seeing recently.
The difference was even more prominent when Biden was the candidate where the thought it was specific dislike of him. Harris has lessened the gap, but it’s still notable. The CW seems to be that the gap will narrow as we approach the election, but as ArcticStones mentions, the question is how that will occur.
Or maybe it won’t. Maybe the demise of ticket splitting has been over-stated. Maybe there are a significant number of folks who want Trump to be president again, but also want a Democratic Senate to keep him in check.
It will certainly be an interesting academic research topic after the election results come in(I think the old 'power of incumbency' thing will be the main factor for divergence)
The risk there is that if the election nears and those people don't think Trump is likely to win, they may amend their decision for vote for Democratic Senate candidates downballot. I suspect that may have happened in 2016, particularly in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
Yeah, the 2016 idea that Dems did worse in the Senate because Clinton was expected to win is what brought the thought to mind. Not sure if I buy it or not but it’s a reasonable theory. However, the last poll I remember seeing showed that most people predict Harris will win (and electoral-vote had an interesting theory that the polls about who people think is going to win are actually more reliable than asking who they will vote for) so if that were the case I’m not sure we’d still see the discrepancies in the polls.
In the back of my mind I’m wondering if it’s somehow the Trump fanatics causing the effect but I can’t figure out how that would work. I don’t see them stating in a poll they would vote for a Dem in the downballot races and there isn’t enough of a difference in the undecided voters to account for it.
But maybe it’s more the undecided voters, who don’t really like Trump and what he stands for, but also long for the good old pre-COVID, pre-inflation days and think he’ll magically bring prices down but they don’t want him to be able to do anything else.
"Maybe there are a significant number of folks who want Trump to be president again, but also want a Democratic Senate to keep him in check." Those people don't realize the Supreme Court gave Trump unlimited power if he wins.
Yes, but there is still the matter of carrying out that power. He has his sycophants, but the rest of the government is not powerless and he will still have to overcome bureaucracy.
Michael, I think there are more conservatives who want Harris to be President, but want a Republican Senate to keep her in check. Certainly that is the priority of the Koch Network and other dark money PACs that are now investing huge amounts of money in various Senate races.
Imho, Democratic PACs need to match those expenditures – plus invest heavily in the Senate races in Florida, Texas and Nebraska.
Not to me; imo only Tester and Brown are(imo Brown pulls it out; Tester, I am just going to hope for a terrific ground operation in the liberal bastions of the big city's and huge turnout on the res)
Something that's less mentioned here that should benefit Tester: the Montana redistricting commission recently sided with Democrats drawing state maps that will essentially result in more competitive seats, many that Democrats have better odds of winning. More competitive seats, including those that favor Democrats, will lead to increased turnout, and that in turn should boost Tester as well.
I’m sitting here this morning trying to wrap my head around the polls of debate watchers released by Politico, CBS and CNN (did anyone else so a snap poll? I’d love to see them if there are others).
What appears to be the take-away:
Disproprotionarely partisan audience, with relatively few independents. CCN’s polling sample had more Ds than Rs, and Politico had more Rs than Ds (couldn’t back out an eatimated ratio with the data CBS provided)
Those who watched the debate were more likely to to have previously formed opinions on Walz and Vance than the Likely Voter polls have been showing
Nearly everyone seems to agree with was a positive debate
Both Walz and Vance improved their personal popularity, and the perception of their readiness to serve as president if need be.
And of those who watched, only 1% of Trump supporters and 1% of Harris supporters flipped their vote. So, this isn’t likely to move many/any polls
Now, the part I don’t get is how narrow the polls are about who won. It was pretty clear to me that Vance won, especially early in the debate when Walz was visibly nervous and using tons of filler words on those first couple questions. Vance is a polished barrister, this is his groove/niche and he showed it on stage with his debate skills. But all 3 polls show the “who won?” question far closer than I would have imagined.
Politico:
50-50 Vance-Walz overall
72-5 Walz among Democrats
71-4 Vance among Democrats
34-25 Walz among Independents
CNN:
51-49 Vance-Walz overall. No partisan crosstabs given
CBS:
42-41 Vance overall. No partisan crosstabs given
Also, has anyone seen the number of viewers? I haven’t seen that number posted anywhere
Just as in a boxing match, one fighter may be ahead on points for eight-and-a-half rounds. That doesn’t matter one iota if the other fighter delivers a knock-out punch in the ninth round.
"That’s a damning non-answer," was Tim Walz’s knock-out punch!
Tim Walz spoke the memorable lines that will echo after this debate. What memorable lines did JD Vance have? I honestly don’t remember any. Neither will most people – and I think that matters.
The Harris-Walz Campaign is already cutting an ad with JD Vance’s evasion about 2020 and future elections – and Walz’s zinger: "That’s a damning non-answer."
"Thinking about the debate last night and I have to say there is something really odd about the media demanding interviews to ensure politicians are honest and accountable and the same media swooning over a slick delivery of lies."
Imo Vance made the 3 biggest mistakes of the night(and thus imo he actually lost); 1\getting his Mic cut made him look silly;2\ he blatantly lied about the national abortion ban, and 3\he would not definitely give an opinion on either January6 or this year's election outcome; so, taking those observations into account, I can see where a neutral observer would basically call it a tie; that Politico poll saying that Walz won the independent portion is very telling(which tells me that Walz actually outperformed expectations)
People prioritize different things. Being “smooth” isn’t necessarily one of them. I’m sure every American who was in debate club in high school thought Vance won; thankfully they don’t make up a huge chunk of the electorate! Walz did good enough; not great, but good enough, which is all he needed to do.
If anything it’s proof that a lot of Americans are *not* on board with the substance of the Trump platform.
I was in debate club and if I judged it, I would have probably judged it a tie(Vance blatantly lying about abortion is a huge nono because it's so easily refuted)
The polls basically calling it a tie is imo a plus for Walz(there was a definite lowering of expectations thing going from the Walz side and that worked to Walz advantage in the end)
I think the two things people will remember about Vance are when he said nothing about Jan 6 and then when he stated I thought you weren't going to fact check me.
Pundits, and for the sake of this conversation I would include us in that category as well, really care about how polished a communicator someone is. I don't think the vast majority of voters do. You do have to cross a minimum threshold, but once you get beyond that, I think what you say matters a whole lot more than how you say it.
I didn't find it to be such a clear win for Vance. Walz is usually good with concise soundbytes that have good replay value in clips and in ads, and he was solid again with that last night. Even though Vance was smoother generally and played to the camera better, I didn't think he landed many punchy, quotable lines. Ultimately, the legacy of the debate (i.e. how it plays in the coming news cycles) matters more than "who appeared nervous during an early exchange".
Imho, Tim Walz spoke the memorable lines – the ones that will echo after this debate. The one I quoted is one of many.
Which memorable lines did JD Vance have? Despite his smoothness, or perhaps because of it, I honestly don’t remember any. Neither will most people – and I think that matters.
While he may have delivered his lines well I don't think Vance said much that was memorable and whatever he did say that was memorable was memorable for the wrong reasons. The locks on doors comment, which he even prefaced by saying it was a bad answer. HIs abortion and January 6th comments are going to be the subject of ads used against them.
While I don't think yesterday's debate did much to move anyone that's undecided or a soft Kamala supporter to their side (maybe it firmed up some soft Trump supporters), but I will say this for JD Vance and this will probably end up being the most long lasting legacy of this debate, I think JD Vance made himself a stronger 2028 candidate based on what he did yesterday.
Only if Orange Slob gets back into the White House. If he doesn't - and I hope he doesn't - Vance will have the loser tag on him going into 2028. FDR notwithstanding, history has been anything BUT kind to losing Vice Presidential candidates when they run for President.
I think when you dig into it, especially recently, this becomes a little less clear. John Edwards was a strong 2008 candidate (the Rielle Hunter affair didn't come out until after he dropped out), but he just happened to be running against 2 even stronger ones. I think Palin would've been a very strong 2012 candidate. I'm not sure about Ryan in 2016 he probably would've been stuffed into the clown car with all the other non-Trump candidates, but in a smaller field or a non-Trump field, he could've been a strong candidate.
2008: Edwards didn't win a single primary or caucus. He came across as an "angry populist" and that doomed him. 2012: Romney ran to the right of Gingrich and Santorum, he wasn't going to be denied the nomination. 2016: even without Orange Slob in the race, Ryan most likely loses to Cruz, Kasich, or Rubio.
Edwards didn't win because he was running against two incredibly strong candidates. He lost to two better candidates not because he was perceived as an angry populist and certainly not because he was a failed VP candidate. I don't know how a Palin-Romney race would've gone, what I am much more comfortable in saying is if Palin did lose it wasn't going to be because of 2008. I think Ryan probably wouldn't lost in a non-Trump 16 field, but that's just because when you have a handful of candidates that are relatively even in terms of strength, no individual candidate is probabilistically likely to win. But, I don't think any of those people were a demonstrably stronger candidate than Ryan
I think he was perceived as all of the above and that's what hurt him. He was peddling a hot brand of left populism but it contrasted so sharply to his persona during his Senate term that, even if you agreed with his message, it seemed like it was coming from a snake oil peddler.
Ryan would have been crushed if he ran in 2016. Even if he ran instead of Scott Walker and occupied that country club lane, there was next to zero constituency for that in the 2016 iteration of the Republican Party. His platform would have been poison to them, and even if Trump hadn't been around as a contrast, somebody like Huckabee or Santorum would have risen in Trump's absence.
I don't really agree with you that someone would've risen in Trump's absence in his vein. If he hadn't been in the race it would've been some flavor of establishment type. I do think Jeb was probably DOA regardless. But Rubio or Cruz or Kasich and yeah Ryan if he had run. I actually don't think it would've been Ryan because I don't think particularly highly of his political abilities.
Regardless of any of that, what I'm much more certain of in this hypothetical is that if Ryan would've run in 2016 and lost that he was the losing VP candidate 4 years earlier would not have been the reason.
I would only say that the minute Trump loses; the very next second he will start deflecting from taking blame himself, and will put Vance on the hot seat by completely bombarding him with fault
I don't see that at all. Vance has been a drag on the Trump campaign and this one debate will do nothing to help him in the future.
He lied about abortion and said some things that might actually hurt him with anti abortion zealots, he messed up a question on January 6th and he was very rude to two women journalists.
I think he is an awful candidate for president and will go no where.
The Washington Post had its group of 23 “undecided swing state voters.” Before the debate, if pushed, they “probably” were for Trump 12-9-2. Afterwards, it was 13-9-1.
They were also asked about lots of issues that came up. The responses to one issue stunned me: “Do you agree with Walz that Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election?” 7 agreed; 12 disagreed and 4 were neither.
The comments were also stunning. As one who “somewhat disagreed said: “The media obscured the event; protestors were allowed into the buildings and Trump never directly commanded anyone to overturn the allegedly fair election.” And one who neither agreed or disagreed said: “I don't really think the election was fair, but I do think Trump influenced people to protest that way.”
I interpret this as showing how successful the right wing media has been in convincing less-involved people about the insurrection. Of course, it could just be a fluke (23 undecideds) but it scares me nonetheless.
"Undecided swing state voters." How do you determine the accuracy of that claim? How do you determine the meaningfulness of that group?
You can't - it's garbage. It's always been garbage, it always will be garbage. It's fluff to allow journalists to create news out of thin air, complete with pithy quotes, rather than actually investigate and do journalism. It's an integral part of the media's utter abdication of their responsibility to the truth and the profession they claim to represent.
It's crap like this that pisses me off and leads me to further and further despise the whole journalistic profession. The Washington Post can climb into the same dumpster the New York Times lives in, dressing up as garbage versions of Fox News and Pravda.
Of course it is not a scientific poll. It's 23 people.
You asked: "Undecided swing state voters." How do you determine the accuracy of that claim? How do you determine the meaningfulness of that group?"
I would say that about any poll respondents and any participant in a focus group. Here, the participants had been polled before and were undecided when polled. And the WP knows who they are, where they live, their professions, etc.
Their discussions about individual issues that came up during the debate certainly have as much validity as speaking to 23 undecided voters at their doors or on the phone. As the WP put it: "Our group is too small to capture how uncommitted swing-state voters feel overall, but it still offers an intimate window into how uncommitted voters, who will be some of the most important voters this election, are thinking and feeling about the debate in real time."
The only part of that post I disagree with is that this lowers my opinion of the media. It does not, because they've interviewed random people about politics forever!
While I disagree that "undecided swing state voter" is meaningless garbage, I would agree that it's garbage when done the way WaPo did.
If the majority of the people in this focus group were "probably" for one or the other pre-debate, they weren't truly undecided. And while there's certainly value in having a focus group of soft supporters of both candidates, to see if the debate changes that for them, it needs to be separate from aun undecided focus group, IMO.
I wouldn't be too concerned. The very results you're citing show that that was not a representative panel, and before anyone suggests that's circular logic, I submit that undecided voters who can be pushed to Trump by the Washington Post aren't really undecided.
Is it really that stunning, though? The majority of the people in the focus group were Trump supporters, including the one they quoted who neither agreed nor disagreed.
And as I commented elsewhere, only two people in this group were actually undecided initially.
This is like CNN including that guy in their focus group before that they knew was a Trumper, because they needed the extra person.
If they couldn't find enough legitimately undecided voters for their focus group they should have just said that, instead of pushing this narrative.
YouGov has an instant poll taken today (10/2) asking the favorability and unfavorability of Vance and Walz. Vance is 38%-39%. Walz is 45%-30%. (The poll included people who watched and did not watch.) (2933 adults surveyed)
I have my sample ballot marked, and as soon as California mails ballots, I'll transfer to the real one and drop in the mail. I usually get a text message--"received and counted" within a day or two.
I don't have my sample ballot or VbM ballot yet, but they are supposed to arrive by early next week. I got the Voterguide from the Sec of State so I can start reading the arguments for and against the statewide propositions.
I got the sample ballot that includes voter information and candidate statements about a week ago and the full text of propositions and for/against on Saturday. This is OC as y know.
Sometimes LA does things differently. The OC bus has never driven off with my wheelchair only half in the bus, lol.
The Cook Political Report has a poll out for NC-Gov that has Stein leading Robinson 59-35%; I can't help but think that this is significant for all races in NC
Trump never hit 50% in NC in either 2016 or 2020 while Romney did in 2012. Clinton and Biden underperformed Roy Cooper by about 3% while Trump was about 1 and 3 points better than the GoP nominee for governor. there will definitely be a larger gap this time but Trump has little margin and if his base slips even a little, Harris has a great shot in NC
And the better news here is the Trump campaign has written off the district EV; so the other committees will have to backstop Bacon; but probably nothing more is coming to him from the RNC\Trump campaign
A competitive election in NE-2 that favors Democrats also will indirectly benefit Dan Osborn. Encourages more left leaning and moderate voters to not only turn out to vote for Vargas, but also potentially for Osborn whose also has quite a progressive platform. Vargas would also be building up his own network, infrastructure, and fundraising to turn out and win over voter, which puts less burden on Osborn to spend, all while not needing to coordinate at all with Vargas and Democrats. Finally, the more voters that turn out and vote for Vargas, and Osborn in turn, means Osborn needs to win less voters in the 1st and 3rd thus increasing his margin for error.
In April, long before Trump picked his running mate, Robert Kuttner wrote a prescient article warning America about JD Vance. This is well worth reading!
We've had discussions on the Republicans scaring people on crime that in California has led to prop 36 and Garcon as LA County attorney probably losing to a Republican.
This morning on local news, in CA 27, Garcia is running attack ads tying Whitesides to Garcon. Hopefully it doesn't work, but I fear with this crime fear, it could.
I live in the city that is statistically the safest large city (over 250k) in the country, and people are talking about violent crime. Total nonsense.
Friendly reminder that violent crime is down and has been dropping consistently over the last three decades.
Property crime is down overall, too.
Frankly, anyone concerned about crime is falling for conservative propaganda. It would be nice if people could wisen up and think a little more critically about what they see on TV and on social media feeds--those are the real reasons why anyone has fears about crime.
Whether you like it or not, it's not just conservatives and Republicans who are concerned about violent crime. Whenever people "hear stories" about crime and murder, they get scared and think "I'm/we're next" and that they must be "protected." Lest we forget that the first two states to pass so called three strikes laws were Washington and California, two not exactly red states, even back in the 1990s. That fact alone should have been a warning sign to "progressives" that "Defund the Police" was a terrible strategy and slogan and it would backfire. We can point to statistics all we want, but fear will always win out. People want the "scary/bad people" to be punished and being seen as "soft on crime" remains a drawback. Even in Blue America.
And the notion that "Defund the Police" apologists have that it failed due to Democrats not standing behind it and "explaining" it is not at all based in reality. The fact that even in deep blue cities voters are rejecting policies seen as "anti police" says it all.
Yeah, it's an utterly stupid slogan. But thinking crime is always the worst it's ever been is terrible for sound policy, and the solution is not to hang 'em high all the time. There has to be some kind of sanity.
Democrats should long ago have pivoted loudly to "Republicans want to defund the Police and law enforcement". Not just the FBI, but the EPA, FDA and all sorts of other agencies that ensure individual and corporate compliance with laws and regulations.
No it’s not. Being pro-criminal is a bad thing. The DLC was created to purge those soft on crime elements from having any significant influence in the party.
Yeah, real Democrats don’t execute the mentally disabled as a political stunt, and describing belief in human rights as “pro-criminal” is criminal for a Democrat.
It’s not irrelevant, recognizing this is the first logical step in counter-acting it. Unanswered propaganda is very effective, yes. That doesn’t mean it’s a natural, unavoidable state of affairs.
It also doesn't help when some on the left insist and insist and insist that Democrats embrace words and phrases that THEY like.......but nobody else does. This is precisely what happened with the "Defund" nonsense. Many of us rational Democrats - those of us who accept that the USA is not Vermont or NYC politically or demographically - said "reform the police" in response. We were told "Republican lite" or "not good enough." Never mind the fact to most Americans, defund = abolish/eliminate. And all the "explaining" in the world is NOT going to change that simple fact.
Not to single you out (and there were many times that I pointed out crime was dropping to people, in the Internet and irl) but that attitude is one of the main reasons we trail on Crime, inflation, and why one of the reasons immigration is so potent for our enemies. When we dismiss these things, rather than providing context and directly blaming it on Republicans, we lose the audience. I still remember Biden's first press secretary almost answering at a reporter asking questions about inflation as inflation started to gain steam. Then they called it transitory, which was political malpractice. Inflation was an actual problem and it should have been acknowledged and laid at the floor of Trump and the Republicans. Crime was actually up in some areas, and it should have been pointed out that it was under Trump that it started rising.
Exactly. As I've said for years, whether we Democrats like it or not, crime IS a genuine concern with the majority of Americans. We Democrats needs to have answers to address that other than "don't be afraid" and "looky looky Red State crime!"
Sending criminals to prison for starters. Also reforming prison so that when released they are less likely to return. Not to mention banning the box so that when back into society, they are more likely to obtain and maintain well paying jobs, thus making them less likely to return to prison.
Considering the incarceration rate I’d say we’re already doing a bang up job on your first suggestion. Well, unless they’re rich and white. As for the others, I have to suspect most Dems are in favor of those but I wonder if they might be even tougher sells than police reform. Americans are vengeful, they want to see prisoners punished and suffering, not “reformed”.
You have a point on messaging/framing and that also potentially affects the policy approaches used/pitched. Some folks (even here) get confused and think it also necessarily means changing policy objectives to match the reactionaries.
With millions being poured into the MT Senate race from both parties, you'd think they'd invest in some quality polling. As a Montanan, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around Tester being -8 in the most recent, questionable R-sponsored poll.
Why are you having trouble with that? He's been pretty consistently behind, and it hasn't been that close. Regardless of the limitations of the polls, I'm beginning to think it should possibly be a likely-R race, and I won't be surprised if Sabato re-rates it that way.
I share a similar sentiment tho I guess I can agree that Tester may be down by as much as 8. My bigger gripe tho is the status quo now seems to be we're flooded with either overly partisan and/or suspect and flawed polls, meanwhile reputable pollsters, nonpartisan or otherwise have become a sparse commodity. Take the Atlas polls yesterday, they had numbers as wonky as Harris down with women but up with men in Michigan and Arizona. I guess this is our reality now.
A nuclear bomb has been dropped in the RSN world, as Diamond Sports Group will drop all MLB contracts other than the Braves. DSG could get a few of the dropped contracts back at lower rates.
Yeah. And DTC means direct-to-customer streaming. It's a complex area involving a lot of considerations, including TV revenues for teams, who use (in good faith or not is an open question) the loss of money to justify payroll-cutting. Meanwhile, lots of folks who just want to enjoy watching their favorite local team play are blacked out under the current system. DTC streaming would likely solve that.
I remember 2020 being this way with Biden going late into Iowa and ultimately the polling was really off. But it seems to track with the two House races becoming more competitive.
Sexual assault allegations against Republican State House Republican Fabian Basabe in a swingy district that Biden carried by 10 points. Their suit alleges a cover up by the State House.
If it's Biden + 10 might make an impact. One of the most depressing things of the Trump era is the number of men who are completely fine with or encouraging of rampant sexual assault.
And they're finding Baldwin up 52-47 H2H and 51-45 multi candidate as well, just a point or so better than Harris. RV numbers 52-48 for Harris as well.
Considering Wisconsin being close in Presidential Elections is nothing new - people forget that both Gore and Kerry won the Badger State by less than one half per cent in their races - a four to seven per cent margin there is looking pretty good.
The 3BigTen states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania) have voted the same in every presidential since 1988; I expect this year to be the same(and yes, they will all be relatively close)
Nope. Wisconsin voted for Dukakis. Bush the Elder won Michigan and Pennsylvania. Interestingly Dukakis did better in Pittsburgh than he did in Philadelphia.
I said since1988 meaning I was not including it; perhaps bad wording but not going to quibble; my point is about this year(I knew the 1988 results; interesting to me was Connecticut, California, actually a lot of Western states)
They're not bad. Their last poll in 2022 had Johnson up 2 and Evers Tied. I will say all pollsters had a decent 2022 in Wisconsin than the 2020 debacle.
Charmin, Scotts, Quilted Northern, and Kleenex produce their toilet paper in America, no ports involved. In case you see someone hoarding. Hopefully this strike ends soon.
I am sure the Biden Administration is working intensely behind the scenes to broker a deal and end the Longshoremen’s strike. If necessary, President Biden should wait until Monday 7 October and order a 30-day "cooling-off period". We cannot afford to have this impacting the 2024 election!
Sue Altman, the Democratic nominee for New Jersey’s hyper-competitive 7th congressional district, has had another gangbusters fundraising quarter, raising more than $2.1 million between July 1 and September 30.
The whopping total brings Altman into the upper echelons of the strongest House fundraisers in New Jersey history – the record still belongs to Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-Montclair), who raised $2.8 million from donors in a single quarter in 2018 – and means that Altman will have lots of cash to spend in her bid to unseat first-term Rep. Tom Kean Jr. (R-Westfield).
Hopium & Simon are making amazing things happen. The community was an early major investor in Ruben Gallego’s Senate candidacy, and in North Carolina’s Democratic Party, which is chaired by the amazing Anderson Clayton (age 26!).
I’m slowly becoming a believer. There’s a lurker on here who works on the campaign, and sorry for not remembering your name, but you mentioned this race just before the site switch and then again soon after. Would really like to hear your thoughts now.
What really opened my eyes though was a late August poll which showed Osborne down 1, but Ricketts up 17 in the special. That mitigates any challenges to a polling error imo. Combined with increased spending for Fischer I’m starting to re-think seats 50+. Originally it was MT>TX/FL>NE/MO but latest evidence seems to be TX>NE>FL/MT>MO. To use a betting analogy, I’d put about even odds on a +52 Senate for either party at this point.
I am a gambler but I am staying away from betting on the Senate;(I am betting on Harris and a Democratic House); but, I can actually see a 50\50 Senate shaping up here, if Florida and Texas and Nebraska(!!) are truly in play; I know very little about Deb Fischer, but definitely Scott and Cruz are unpopular politicians, which brings me hope
Polls aside, I'm a believer if for no other reason than that we shouldn't concede any elections. Moreover, it's also a matter of reaching out to voters with a progressive platform, or at least an alternative to the toxicity that MAGAs offer. If folks like Osborn don't bother to reach out to these voters in places like Nebraska, then they will continue to be exposed only to disinformation and toxicity from the GOP and their corrupt allies, while Democrats continue to ignore and neglect them. Like with Lucas Kunce in Missouri, you have to start somewhere if you ever hope to reach out to voters.
All I can find is that it's a Republican firm(but can't find the Bullfinch Group in the entire 538 database); the owner Brett Lloyd was with The Polling company and has links to Kelly Anne Conway; so, I don't know how to judge this frankly unbelievable poll
It's sponsored by something called "The Independent Center", which appears at a cursory glance to be exactly what it sounds like - partisan I (as odd as that may seem). One should probably read this like an internal Osborn poll.
Poll has Trump up 48-38, so add 10 points to the republicans basically. At the end of the day 80% of the republicans are going to vote for the republican and that's more than enough.
I am just saying that we should be very wary of this particular poll; I agree that this race has now gotten on the radar but let's step back a little for now and let it go another couple of weeks; hopefully with some more reputable pollster(damn I wish that race had a selzer\marquette type local expert or a Ralston blog for close-up reporting)
Nope; but I would give that Survey USA poll recently showing Osborn plus1 lots of credence(and of course, following the money, BOTH sides are spending real money)
Another thing is that with no Democrat or 3rd party candidates(other than the technically Independent Osborn)in the race, it's a straight up or down vote between the 2; apparently Fischer has refused to debate, which could play on the margins
FWIW a lot of these polls in Nebraska aren't partisan pollsters. Many are nonpartisan or even right leaning and those like SurveyUSA are quite reputable. I guess we'll find out how this plays out.
First, really glad to see that Nebraska ad informing voters exactly how to restore abortion rights in the state. Absolutely necessary, given that state officials intentionally designed the ballot and the competing ballot measure to be misleading!
Second, Mike Braun’s senate campaign ought to be required to broadcast messages that correct the false claims contained in his ads that use manipulated images. Furthermore, those corrections should be required to have equivalent media placement and airtime.
Third, yesterday, someone here made the claim that the head of The International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) is MAGA. I have not seen any reports indicating this. If true, I hope someone will provide a link.
Some other poster pointed out that the Union leader endorsed Harris
I saw that. But unless I misunderstood that endorsement was this summer, and there was a hint that the ILA had a change of heart. I’ll be relieved to hear this is not the case.
Imo the original poster mistook the Longshoremen for the Teamsters; 2 entirely different unions
I’m not seeing evidence for that anywhere. This article https://www.newsweek.com/harold-daggett-salary-trump-connection-us-port-strike-1962260 (I know, Newsweek, sorry) says the union has not endorsed anyone but did endorse Biden in 2020.
I think the jury is still out. If he was trying to help Trump out then the timing is pretty good.
The confusion is that the poster from yesterday's down ballot had the wrong Union; as far as I can tell this Union (ILA) hasn't endorsed nationally this year(perhaps knowing that a strike may come into play)
They did endorse Biden in 2020
I think the picture at https://ilaunion.org/ila-president-harold-daggett-asks-ila-members-to-pray-for-former-president-donald-trump-and-victims-at-saturdays-pennsylvania-rally-recalls-productive-meeting-last-november-with-trump/ is most of the “evidence”. I think it could be interpreted either way. Have to remember at that time Trump was at least the slight favorite to win and there was thought that the assassination attempt and corresponding ear tampon were going to help him. So it could have been good politics for his union. On the other hand, if you take his words at face value he’s either a Trump toady or a very stupid man for believing Trump cares about his members.
As far as I can tell; this Union only endorsed Democratic candidates in the past; lots of them are local in nature
A new Cook Political Report Swing State Project Survey conducted by BSG and GS Strategy Group (September 19-25; 2,941 voters), shows Vice President Kamala Harris leading or tied with former President Donald Trump in all but one of the seven battleground states. Overall, she holds a narrow lead of 49% to 48% in a two-way matchup.
Harris has a lead within the margin of error in Arizona (+2), Michigan (+3), Nevada (+1), Pennsylvania (+1), and Wisconsin (+2). Trump is ahead 49% to 47% in Georgia, and the two candidates are tied at 49% in North Carolina.
https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/survey-research/2024-swing-state-project/swing-state-polling-finds-deadlocked-presidential
Senate races:
Democrats have 13-point leads in both Arizona, where Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego is leading former gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake 54%-41%, and Nevada, where Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen leads former Army Captain Sam Brown 53%-40%.
Democratic Sen. Bob Casey leads his Republican opponent David McCormick by seven points, 52%-45%, in Pennsylvania.
Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin leads her GOP opponent, former Rep. Mike Rogers, by four points — 50%-46%
In Wisconsin, Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin leads Republican businessman Eric Hovde by only two points, 49%-47%, down from a seven point lead in our last survey.
All of the Democratic Senate candidates have greater leads that Kamala Harris does.
The high degree of political polarization means fewer voters split their tickets. Does this not mean we will see a meaningful degree of convergence between the Senate and Presidential races in most states? If so, the question is whether Harris is more likely to overperform her polls, or the Dem Denate candidates underperform.
Thoughts?
There’s no difference in Wisconsin.
There are voters who split their tickets. There will be divergence in most of these states.
Wisconsin is just one exception. Of course there will be divergence; the question is whether there will be a convergence relative to the polls – and, if so, whether it is mostly our Presidential or Senate candidates that move.
There has been a pretty consistent 4-5 point difference in Baldwin’s favor in previous WI polls. This is one of the only polls from any state showing alignment between the Presidential and Senate numbers that I can recall seeing recently.
The difference was even more prominent when Biden was the candidate where the thought it was specific dislike of him. Harris has lessened the gap, but it’s still notable. The CW seems to be that the gap will narrow as we approach the election, but as ArcticStones mentions, the question is how that will occur.
Or maybe it won’t. Maybe the demise of ticket splitting has been over-stated. Maybe there are a significant number of folks who want Trump to be president again, but also want a Democratic Senate to keep him in check.
It will certainly be an interesting academic research topic after the election results come in(I think the old 'power of incumbency' thing will be the main factor for divergence)
The risk there is that if the election nears and those people don't think Trump is likely to win, they may amend their decision for vote for Democratic Senate candidates downballot. I suspect that may have happened in 2016, particularly in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
I don’t think this will ever be the case with Trump now — Dems are shell-shocked after 2016, and Republicans are arrogant poll-deniers.
Yeah, the 2016 idea that Dems did worse in the Senate because Clinton was expected to win is what brought the thought to mind. Not sure if I buy it or not but it’s a reasonable theory. However, the last poll I remember seeing showed that most people predict Harris will win (and electoral-vote had an interesting theory that the polls about who people think is going to win are actually more reliable than asking who they will vote for) so if that were the case I’m not sure we’d still see the discrepancies in the polls.
In the back of my mind I’m wondering if it’s somehow the Trump fanatics causing the effect but I can’t figure out how that would work. I don’t see them stating in a poll they would vote for a Dem in the downballot races and there isn’t enough of a difference in the undecided voters to account for it.
But maybe it’s more the undecided voters, who don’t really like Trump and what he stands for, but also long for the good old pre-COVID, pre-inflation days and think he’ll magically bring prices down but they don’t want him to be able to do anything else.
"Maybe there are a significant number of folks who want Trump to be president again, but also want a Democratic Senate to keep him in check." Those people don't realize the Supreme Court gave Trump unlimited power if he wins.
Yes, but there is still the matter of carrying out that power. He has his sycophants, but the rest of the government is not powerless and he will still have to overcome bureaucracy.
I think those people are also stupid.
Who are these “significant” number of Trump voters?
Michael, I think there are more conservatives who want Harris to be President, but want a Republican Senate to keep her in check. Certainly that is the priority of the Koch Network and other dark money PACs that are now investing huge amounts of money in various Senate races.
Imho, Democratic PACs need to match those expenditures – plus invest heavily in the Senate races in Florida, Texas and Nebraska.
I doubt Democratic Senate candidates/incumbent Senators will underperform if it means Kamala Harris will overperforms.
The more likely scenarios are as follows:
1) Harris overperforms and Senate candidates/incumbents get a boost from this.
2) Harris underperforms and Senate candidates/incumbents underperform.
It’s hard for me to understand how Senate candidates/incumbents polling wider than Harris will underperform in this likely high turnout election.
Is Baldwin really endangered?
Not to me; imo only Tester and Brown are(imo Brown pulls it out; Tester, I am just going to hope for a terrific ground operation in the liberal bastions of the big city's and huge turnout on the res)
Something that's less mentioned here that should benefit Tester: the Montana redistricting commission recently sided with Democrats drawing state maps that will essentially result in more competitive seats, many that Democrats have better odds of winning. More competitive seats, including those that favor Democrats, will lead to increased turnout, and that in turn should boost Tester as well.
I’m sitting here this morning trying to wrap my head around the polls of debate watchers released by Politico, CBS and CNN (did anyone else so a snap poll? I’d love to see them if there are others).
What appears to be the take-away:
Disproprotionarely partisan audience, with relatively few independents. CCN’s polling sample had more Ds than Rs, and Politico had more Rs than Ds (couldn’t back out an eatimated ratio with the data CBS provided)
Those who watched the debate were more likely to to have previously formed opinions on Walz and Vance than the Likely Voter polls have been showing
Nearly everyone seems to agree with was a positive debate
Both Walz and Vance improved their personal popularity, and the perception of their readiness to serve as president if need be.
And of those who watched, only 1% of Trump supporters and 1% of Harris supporters flipped their vote. So, this isn’t likely to move many/any polls
Now, the part I don’t get is how narrow the polls are about who won. It was pretty clear to me that Vance won, especially early in the debate when Walz was visibly nervous and using tons of filler words on those first couple questions. Vance is a polished barrister, this is his groove/niche and he showed it on stage with his debate skills. But all 3 polls show the “who won?” question far closer than I would have imagined.
Politico:
50-50 Vance-Walz overall
72-5 Walz among Democrats
71-4 Vance among Democrats
34-25 Walz among Independents
CNN:
51-49 Vance-Walz overall. No partisan crosstabs given
CBS:
42-41 Vance overall. No partisan crosstabs given
Also, has anyone seen the number of viewers? I haven’t seen that number posted anywhere
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-vp-debate-poll-2024/
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/02/politics/election-poll-walz-vance-debate/index.html
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/02/politico-snap-poll-division-debate-00182131
Just as in a boxing match, one fighter may be ahead on points for eight-and-a-half rounds. That doesn’t matter one iota if the other fighter delivers a knock-out punch in the ninth round.
"That’s a damning non-answer," was Tim Walz’s knock-out punch!
It was definitely Walz' high water mark, and a major ding on Vance. Hardly a knockout though
Maybe more of a 'knockdown'; rather than a 'knockout'; Harris delivered a 'knockout' to Trump in the first debate
To keep the boxing jargon going; the judges here(according to your polls above) ruled this debate a draw
Tim Walz spoke the memorable lines that will echo after this debate. What memorable lines did JD Vance have? I honestly don’t remember any. Neither will most people – and I think that matters.
To be honest, I think the entire debate will be forgotten by Saturday
The Harris-Walz Campaign is already cutting an ad with JD Vance’s evasion about 2020 and future elections – and Walz’s zinger: "That’s a damning non-answer."
At least that line won’t be forgotten.
I stand corrected...that line could have an impact
that is what I said last night...lots of back and forth...nothing that will have a lasting impact although some of vances bs should
"Thinking about the debate last night and I have to say there is something really odd about the media demanding interviews to ensure politicians are honest and accountable and the same media swooning over a slick delivery of lies."
– Neera Tanden
Imo Vance made the 3 biggest mistakes of the night(and thus imo he actually lost); 1\getting his Mic cut made him look silly;2\ he blatantly lied about the national abortion ban, and 3\he would not definitely give an opinion on either January6 or this year's election outcome; so, taking those observations into account, I can see where a neutral observer would basically call it a tie; that Politico poll saying that Walz won the independent portion is very telling(which tells me that Walz actually outperformed expectations)
People prioritize different things. Being “smooth” isn’t necessarily one of them. I’m sure every American who was in debate club in high school thought Vance won; thankfully they don’t make up a huge chunk of the electorate! Walz did good enough; not great, but good enough, which is all he needed to do.
If anything it’s proof that a lot of Americans are *not* on board with the substance of the Trump platform.
He was nowhere near as confused, sometimes incoherent and quiet as Biden.
I was in debate club and if I judged it, I would have probably judged it a tie(Vance blatantly lying about abortion is a huge nono because it's so easily refuted)
Vance's whopper on the ACA was his most audacious moment of the night IMO.
That is true but imo the abortion lying is just so far beyond the pale(but you have a great point)
The polls basically calling it a tie is imo a plus for Walz(there was a definite lowering of expectations thing going from the Walz side and that worked to Walz advantage in the end)
"The first thing I want to know about a flash poll of debate watchers is the partisan breakdown of the people watching the debate."
– Prof. Michael McDonald (Election Project)
I think the two things people will remember about Vance are when he said nothing about Jan 6 and then when he stated I thought you weren't going to fact check me.
Both of those would have lost him speakers points in high school debate judging
I would add the blatant lying on the abortion issue
Pundits, and for the sake of this conversation I would include us in that category as well, really care about how polished a communicator someone is. I don't think the vast majority of voters do. You do have to cross a minimum threshold, but once you get beyond that, I think what you say matters a whole lot more than how you say it.
I imagine that it's a stamina issue; after all, dude's an astronaut
I didn't find it to be such a clear win for Vance. Walz is usually good with concise soundbytes that have good replay value in clips and in ads, and he was solid again with that last night. Even though Vance was smoother generally and played to the camera better, I didn't think he landed many punchy, quotable lines. Ultimately, the legacy of the debate (i.e. how it plays in the coming news cycles) matters more than "who appeared nervous during an early exchange".
Imho, Tim Walz spoke the memorable lines – the ones that will echo after this debate. The one I quoted is one of many.
Which memorable lines did JD Vance have? Despite his smoothness, or perhaps because of it, I honestly don’t remember any. Neither will most people – and I think that matters.
"This makes [JD Vance] the first vice presidential candidate in history who doesn’t know who won the last presidential election."
– Lawrence O’Donnell
Sometimes it's just the guns.
While he may have delivered his lines well I don't think Vance said much that was memorable and whatever he did say that was memorable was memorable for the wrong reasons. The locks on doors comment, which he even prefaced by saying it was a bad answer. HIs abortion and January 6th comments are going to be the subject of ads used against them.
While I don't think yesterday's debate did much to move anyone that's undecided or a soft Kamala supporter to their side (maybe it firmed up some soft Trump supporters), but I will say this for JD Vance and this will probably end up being the most long lasting legacy of this debate, I think JD Vance made himself a stronger 2028 candidate based on what he did yesterday.
Only if Orange Slob gets back into the White House. If he doesn't - and I hope he doesn't - Vance will have the loser tag on him going into 2028. FDR notwithstanding, history has been anything BUT kind to losing Vice Presidential candidates when they run for President.
I think when you dig into it, especially recently, this becomes a little less clear. John Edwards was a strong 2008 candidate (the Rielle Hunter affair didn't come out until after he dropped out), but he just happened to be running against 2 even stronger ones. I think Palin would've been a very strong 2012 candidate. I'm not sure about Ryan in 2016 he probably would've been stuffed into the clown car with all the other non-Trump candidates, but in a smaller field or a non-Trump field, he could've been a strong candidate.
2008: Edwards didn't win a single primary or caucus. He came across as an "angry populist" and that doomed him. 2012: Romney ran to the right of Gingrich and Santorum, he wasn't going to be denied the nomination. 2016: even without Orange Slob in the race, Ryan most likely loses to Cruz, Kasich, or Rubio.
Edwards didn't win because he was running against two incredibly strong candidates. He lost to two better candidates not because he was perceived as an angry populist and certainly not because he was a failed VP candidate. I don't know how a Palin-Romney race would've gone, what I am much more comfortable in saying is if Palin did lose it wasn't going to be because of 2008. I think Ryan probably wouldn't lost in a non-Trump 16 field, but that's just because when you have a handful of candidates that are relatively even in terms of strength, no individual candidate is probabilistically likely to win. But, I don't think any of those people were a demonstrably stronger candidate than Ryan
I don't think Edwards was perceived as angry. Incredibly fake and shallow, maybe.
I think he was perceived as all of the above and that's what hurt him. He was peddling a hot brand of left populism but it contrasted so sharply to his persona during his Senate term that, even if you agreed with his message, it seemed like it was coming from a snake oil peddler.
Definitely fake and shallow. It was a precursor of revelations to come.
Ryan would have been crushed if he ran in 2016. Even if he ran instead of Scott Walker and occupied that country club lane, there was next to zero constituency for that in the 2016 iteration of the Republican Party. His platform would have been poison to them, and even if Trump hadn't been around as a contrast, somebody like Huckabee or Santorum would have risen in Trump's absence.
I don't really agree with you that someone would've risen in Trump's absence in his vein. If he hadn't been in the race it would've been some flavor of establishment type. I do think Jeb was probably DOA regardless. But Rubio or Cruz or Kasich and yeah Ryan if he had run. I actually don't think it would've been Ryan because I don't think particularly highly of his political abilities.
Regardless of any of that, what I'm much more certain of in this hypothetical is that if Ryan would've run in 2016 and lost that he was the losing VP candidate 4 years earlier would not have been the reason.
I am thinking it would have been either Cruz or Rubio(leaning towards Cruz)
agree completely; there would not have been a trump 2.0
Palin would have lost a general election worse than Romney did.
I would only say that the minute Trump loses; the very next second he will start deflecting from taking blame himself, and will put Vance on the hot seat by completely bombarding him with fault
Lmao
Which will only reinforce my loser tag argument above.
I don't see that at all. Vance has been a drag on the Trump campaign and this one debate will do nothing to help him in the future.
He lied about abortion and said some things that might actually hurt him with anti abortion zealots, he messed up a question on January 6th and he was very rude to two women journalists.
I think he is an awful candidate for president and will go no where.
I watched the debate, and Walz won IMO.
The Washington Post had its group of 23 “undecided swing state voters.” Before the debate, if pushed, they “probably” were for Trump 12-9-2. Afterwards, it was 13-9-1.
They were also asked about lots of issues that came up. The responses to one issue stunned me: “Do you agree with Walz that Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election?” 7 agreed; 12 disagreed and 4 were neither.
The comments were also stunning. As one who “somewhat disagreed said: “The media obscured the event; protestors were allowed into the buildings and Trump never directly commanded anyone to overturn the allegedly fair election.” And one who neither agreed or disagreed said: “I don't really think the election was fair, but I do think Trump influenced people to protest that way.”
I interpret this as showing how successful the right wing media has been in convincing less-involved people about the insurrection. Of course, it could just be a fluke (23 undecideds) but it scares me nonetheless.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/interactive/2024/vice-presidential-debate-voter-poll/?itid=hp-top-table-main_p001_f005
"Undecided swing state voters." How do you determine the accuracy of that claim? How do you determine the meaningfulness of that group?
You can't - it's garbage. It's always been garbage, it always will be garbage. It's fluff to allow journalists to create news out of thin air, complete with pithy quotes, rather than actually investigate and do journalism. It's an integral part of the media's utter abdication of their responsibility to the truth and the profession they claim to represent.
It's crap like this that pisses me off and leads me to further and further despise the whole journalistic profession. The Washington Post can climb into the same dumpster the New York Times lives in, dressing up as garbage versions of Fox News and Pravda.
Of course it is not a scientific poll. It's 23 people.
You asked: "Undecided swing state voters." How do you determine the accuracy of that claim? How do you determine the meaningfulness of that group?"
I would say that about any poll respondents and any participant in a focus group. Here, the participants had been polled before and were undecided when polled. And the WP knows who they are, where they live, their professions, etc.
Their discussions about individual issues that came up during the debate certainly have as much validity as speaking to 23 undecided voters at their doors or on the phone. As the WP put it: "Our group is too small to capture how uncommitted swing-state voters feel overall, but it still offers an intimate window into how uncommitted voters, who will be some of the most important voters this election, are thinking and feeling about the debate in real time."
The only part of that post I disagree with is that this lowers my opinion of the media. It does not, because they've interviewed random people about politics forever!
Lemme guess, they found these "undecided voters" in a diner out in some small exurban town?
While I disagree that "undecided swing state voter" is meaningless garbage, I would agree that it's garbage when done the way WaPo did.
If the majority of the people in this focus group were "probably" for one or the other pre-debate, they weren't truly undecided. And while there's certainly value in having a focus group of soft supporters of both candidates, to see if the debate changes that for them, it needs to be separate from aun undecided focus group, IMO.
I wouldn't be too concerned. The very results you're citing show that that was not a representative panel, and before anyone suggests that's circular logic, I submit that undecided voters who can be pushed to Trump by the Washington Post aren't really undecided.
Is it really that stunning, though? The majority of the people in the focus group were Trump supporters, including the one they quoted who neither agreed nor disagreed.
And as I commented elsewhere, only two people in this group were actually undecided initially.
This is like CNN including that guy in their focus group before that they knew was a Trumper, because they needed the extra person.
If they couldn't find enough legitimately undecided voters for their focus group they should have just said that, instead of pushing this narrative.
YouGov has an instant poll taken today (10/2) asking the favorability and unfavorability of Vance and Walz. Vance is 38%-39%. Walz is 45%-30%. (The poll included people who watched and did not watch.) (2933 adults surveyed)
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2024/10/02/256ff/1
I don't agree with you. Overall, I felt the debate was a push, just like snap polls did.
EARLY VOTE UPDATE
As of 11am, at least 830,838 Early Votes have been cast. These are the top 12 states:
VA 346,774
NJ 111,337
WI 99,283
MD 65,419
MI 62,869
PA 33,408
MN 32,788
IL 20,980
SD 12,498
IN 12,474
NC 7,829
FL 6,152
https://election.lab.ufl.edu/early-vote/2024-early-voting/
Five of the 12 states above report party registration: FL, MD, NJ, NC and PA.
I have my sample ballot marked, and as soon as California mails ballots, I'll transfer to the real one and drop in the mail. I usually get a text message--"received and counted" within a day or two.
I don't have my sample ballot or VbM ballot yet, but they are supposed to arrive by early next week. I got the Voterguide from the Sec of State so I can start reading the arguments for and against the statewide propositions.
I've been waiting for mine too-- and for the Voterguide.
I got the sample ballot that includes voter information and candidate statements about a week ago and the full text of propositions and for/against on Saturday. This is OC as y know.
Sometimes LA does things differently. The OC bus has never driven off with my wheelchair only half in the bus, lol.
I was wondering if Michael McDonald would work on this again. Thanks for the link will bookmark it.
The Cook Political Report has a poll out for NC-Gov that has Stein leading Robinson 59-35%; I can't help but think that this is significant for all races in NC
Trump never hit 50% in NC in either 2016 or 2020 while Romney did in 2012. Clinton and Biden underperformed Roy Cooper by about 3% while Trump was about 1 and 3 points better than the GoP nominee for governor. there will definitely be a larger gap this time but Trump has little margin and if his base slips even a little, Harris has a great shot in NC
Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball has moved NE-2 from "Toss up" to "Leans Democratic". This is where Tony Vargas is looking to unseat Don Bacon.
And the better news here is the Trump campaign has written off the district EV; so the other committees will have to backstop Bacon; but probably nothing more is coming to him from the RNC\Trump campaign
A competitive election in NE-2 that favors Democrats also will indirectly benefit Dan Osborn. Encourages more left leaning and moderate voters to not only turn out to vote for Vargas, but also potentially for Osborn whose also has quite a progressive platform. Vargas would also be building up his own network, infrastructure, and fundraising to turn out and win over voter, which puts less burden on Osborn to spend, all while not needing to coordinate at all with Vargas and Democrats. Finally, the more voters that turn out and vote for Vargas, and Osborn in turn, means Osborn needs to win less voters in the 1st and 3rd thus increasing his margin for error.
What are the candidates like in the other Council of State races? I know the GOP candidate for Superintendent of Public Instruction is pretty bad.
Actually I don't know; sorry
In April, long before Trump picked his running mate, Robert Kuttner wrote a prescient article warning America about JD Vance. This is well worth reading!
https://prospect.org/politics/2024-04-23-maga-2-0-jd-vance/
We've had discussions on the Republicans scaring people on crime that in California has led to prop 36 and Garcon as LA County attorney probably losing to a Republican.
This morning on local news, in CA 27, Garcia is running attack ads tying Whitesides to Garcon. Hopefully it doesn't work, but I fear with this crime fear, it could.
I live in the city that is statistically the safest large city (over 250k) in the country, and people are talking about violent crime. Total nonsense.
Friendly reminder that violent crime is down and has been dropping consistently over the last three decades.
Property crime is down overall, too.
Frankly, anyone concerned about crime is falling for conservative propaganda. It would be nice if people could wisen up and think a little more critically about what they see on TV and on social media feeds--those are the real reasons why anyone has fears about crime.
Whether you like it or not, it's not just conservatives and Republicans who are concerned about violent crime. Whenever people "hear stories" about crime and murder, they get scared and think "I'm/we're next" and that they must be "protected." Lest we forget that the first two states to pass so called three strikes laws were Washington and California, two not exactly red states, even back in the 1990s. That fact alone should have been a warning sign to "progressives" that "Defund the Police" was a terrible strategy and slogan and it would backfire. We can point to statistics all we want, but fear will always win out. People want the "scary/bad people" to be punished and being seen as "soft on crime" remains a drawback. Even in Blue America.
You’re 100% correct. And not dealing with those who shoplift, break into cars, carjack, and commit quality of life crimes is a political loser.
Defund the Police was the worst message too.
And the notion that "Defund the Police" apologists have that it failed due to Democrats not standing behind it and "explaining" it is not at all based in reality. The fact that even in deep blue cities voters are rejecting policies seen as "anti police" says it all.
Exactly. Even in the most liberal cities those policies are unpopular.
Minneapolis Mayor says 'hello'
Yeah, it's an utterly stupid slogan. But thinking crime is always the worst it's ever been is terrible for sound policy, and the solution is not to hang 'em high all the time. There has to be some kind of sanity.
Democrats should long ago have pivoted loudly to "Republicans want to defund the Police and law enforcement". Not just the FBI, but the EPA, FDA and all sorts of other agencies that ensure individual and corporate compliance with laws and regulations.
Trumpeting GOP propaganda on crime is also a political loser for real Democrats.
No it’s not. Being pro-criminal is a bad thing. The DLC was created to purge those soft on crime elements from having any significant influence in the party.
Yeah, real Democrats don’t execute the mentally disabled as a political stunt, and describing belief in human rights as “pro-criminal” is criminal for a Democrat.
"Pro-criminal" is utter bullshit. No-one is pro-criminal. It's like calling Democrats "anti-life" for supporting abortion rights.
Who's pro-criminal?
Seriously, please point to any serious Democratic candidate who has espoused views that are in favor of criminals.
Who funds them hearing those stories?
That's irrelevant. Rightly or wrongly fear sells. We do ourselves and the American people no favors by pretending that the electorate is rational.
It’s not irrelevant, recognizing this is the first logical step in counter-acting it. Unanswered propaganda is very effective, yes. That doesn’t mean it’s a natural, unavoidable state of affairs.
Appeals to lizard brain are not limited to the current slate.
It also doesn't help when some on the left insist and insist and insist that Democrats embrace words and phrases that THEY like.......but nobody else does. This is precisely what happened with the "Defund" nonsense. Many of us rational Democrats - those of us who accept that the USA is not Vermont or NYC politically or demographically - said "reform the police" in response. We were told "Republican lite" or "not good enough." Never mind the fact to most Americans, defund = abolish/eliminate. And all the "explaining" in the world is NOT going to change that simple fact.
Did you know that the majority of people killed by strangers in this country are killed by cops?
Good luck with telling that to the American electorate. "Democrats don't care about your safety!"
Not to single you out (and there were many times that I pointed out crime was dropping to people, in the Internet and irl) but that attitude is one of the main reasons we trail on Crime, inflation, and why one of the reasons immigration is so potent for our enemies. When we dismiss these things, rather than providing context and directly blaming it on Republicans, we lose the audience. I still remember Biden's first press secretary almost answering at a reporter asking questions about inflation as inflation started to gain steam. Then they called it transitory, which was political malpractice. Inflation was an actual problem and it should have been acknowledged and laid at the floor of Trump and the Republicans. Crime was actually up in some areas, and it should have been pointed out that it was under Trump that it started rising.
I meant the press secretary was almost "sneering" at the reporter.
Exactly. As I've said for years, whether we Democrats like it or not, crime IS a genuine concern with the majority of Americans. We Democrats needs to have answers to address that other than "don't be afraid" and "looky looky Red State crime!"
What do you propose those answers be? Hopefully not further militarizing police forces or increasing their already bloated budgets.
Sending criminals to prison for starters. Also reforming prison so that when released they are less likely to return. Not to mention banning the box so that when back into society, they are more likely to obtain and maintain well paying jobs, thus making them less likely to return to prison.
Considering the incarceration rate I’d say we’re already doing a bang up job on your first suggestion. Well, unless they’re rich and white. As for the others, I have to suspect most Dems are in favor of those but I wonder if they might be even tougher sells than police reform. Americans are vengeful, they want to see prisoners punished and suffering, not “reformed”.
Bail reform has proven to be a failure.
I mean, to the general public your first two points are contradictory.
Prison reform is seen as soft on crime by the same people who believe crime rates are spiking.
I would also argue that "sending criminals to prison" is compatible with also pointing out that violent crime rates are down.
You have a point on messaging/framing and that also potentially affects the policy approaches used/pitched. Some folks (even here) get confused and think it also necessarily means changing policy objectives to match the reactionaries.
I’d vote for 36 and against Gascon, like I would’ve voted to recall Boudin.
What has she done poorly in her tenure?
Has crime increased in Minneapolis lately?
With millions being poured into the MT Senate race from both parties, you'd think they'd invest in some quality polling. As a Montanan, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around Tester being -8 in the most recent, questionable R-sponsored poll.
I guarantee you that both campaigns are polling constantly
Why are you having trouble with that? He's been pretty consistently behind, and it hasn't been that close. Regardless of the limitations of the polls, I'm beginning to think it should possibly be a likely-R race, and I won't be surprised if Sabato re-rates it that way.
I share a similar sentiment tho I guess I can agree that Tester may be down by as much as 8. My bigger gripe tho is the status quo now seems to be we're flooded with either overly partisan and/or suspect and flawed polls, meanwhile reputable pollsters, nonpartisan or otherwise have become a sparse commodity. Take the Atlas polls yesterday, they had numbers as wonky as Harris down with women but up with men in Michigan and Arizona. I guess this is our reality now.
It's best to wait for the reputable pollsters; like the Marquette poll below👇👇👇
A nuclear bomb has been dropped in the RSN world, as Diamond Sports Group will drop all MLB contracts other than the Braves. DSG could get a few of the dropped contracts back at lower rates.
As for the Cardinals, they are likely headed to a DTC model, per The Athletic's Katie Woo. https://thestreamable.com/diamond-sports-group-to-drop-all-mlb-contracts-except-atlanta-braves
As a MLB and Braves fan; this is very interesting to me(thanks for this link)
Ok, I’ve read this comment multiple times and am still not sure about RSN? Regional Sports Network?
Yeah. And DTC means direct-to-customer streaming. It's a complex area involving a lot of considerations, including TV revenues for teams, who use (in good faith or not is an open question) the loss of money to justify payroll-cutting. Meanwhile, lots of folks who just want to enjoy watching their favorite local team play are blacked out under the current system. DTC streaming would likely solve that.
2024 Iowa GE:
Trump 51% (+6)
Harris 45%
.@cygnal/@ITRFoundation, 600 LV, 9/27-28
I remember 2020 being this way with Biden going late into Iowa and ultimately the polling was really off. But it seems to track with the two House races becoming more competitive.
Just wish Selzer would drop more of her public polling info
flapol.com/4dO1wi1
Sexual assault allegations against Republican State House Republican Fabian Basabe in a swingy district that Biden carried by 10 points. Their suit alleges a cover up by the State House.
If it's Biden + 10 might make an impact. One of the most depressing things of the Trump era is the number of men who are completely fine with or encouraging of rampant sexual assault.
Wisconsin: Marquette poll has Harris up 52-48 with LVs. 49-44 in multi candidate field.
That's a very good Wisconsin pollster.
And they're finding Baldwin up 52-47 H2H and 51-45 multi candidate as well, just a point or so better than Harris. RV numbers 52-48 for Harris as well.
Actually it’s 53-46 in both. Think you’re looking at the poll from three weeks ago.
Wow. Apparently I can't read. Thanks for the catch!
Surprised at the convergence of Baldwin and Harris in so many polls. I figured Baldwin would run at least 3 points ahead of the top of the ticket.
Well, she actually is in terms of the spread. 53-46 compared to 52-48
I might add it's really nice to see BOTH over 50%
Considering Wisconsin being close in Presidential Elections is nothing new - people forget that both Gore and Kerry won the Badger State by less than one half per cent in their races - a four to seven per cent margin there is looking pretty good.
The 3BigTen states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania) have voted the same in every presidential since 1988; I expect this year to be the same(and yes, they will all be relatively close)
Nope. Wisconsin voted for Dukakis. Bush the Elder won Michigan and Pennsylvania. Interestingly Dukakis did better in Pittsburgh than he did in Philadelphia.
I said since1988 meaning I was not including it; perhaps bad wording but not going to quibble; my point is about this year(I knew the 1988 results; interesting to me was Connecticut, California, actually a lot of Western states)
Isn't the Marquette poll kinda the Selzer equivalent in Wisconsin?? (Or am I remembering wrong?)
Pretty much.
They're not bad. Their last poll in 2022 had Johnson up 2 and Evers Tied. I will say all pollsters had a decent 2022 in Wisconsin than the 2020 debacle.
It was the DSCC that goofed it
I'm not convinced of this
I thought their track record wasn't quite as good as hers, but maybe I'm wrong.
Selzer is in a league of her own. But Marquette is definitely in the top main tier of pollsters
Didn't Marquette have Hillary up by 7 in 2016?
Charmin, Scotts, Quilted Northern, and Kleenex produce their toilet paper in America, no ports involved. In case you see someone hoarding. Hopefully this strike ends soon.
I am sure the Biden Administration is working intensely behind the scenes to broker a deal and end the Longshoremen’s strike. If necessary, President Biden should wait until Monday 7 October and order a 30-day "cooling-off period". We cannot afford to have this impacting the 2024 election!
Agreed 100%
Sue Altman, the Democratic nominee for New Jersey’s hyper-competitive 7th congressional district, has had another gangbusters fundraising quarter, raising more than $2.1 million between July 1 and September 30.
The whopping total brings Altman into the upper echelons of the strongest House fundraisers in New Jersey history – the record still belongs to Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-Montclair), who raised $2.8 million from donors in a single quarter in 2018 – and means that Altman will have lots of cash to spend in her bid to unseat first-term Rep. Tom Kean Jr. (R-Westfield).
https://newjerseyglobe.com/congress/altman-raises-whopping-2-1-million-in-three-months-for-campaign-against-kean/
Sherrod Brown has raised $30.6 million in the 3rd quarter. Wow!!
Doesn’t sound like this is the fundraising of a losing campaign.
Brown is kicking ass!
It's really impressive, but I'd introduce a note of caution, as usual. I can remember huge-spending candidates who lost.
Considering Brown has been leading in the majority of the polls, these fundraising numbers signify his ability to do effective fundraising.
If the dynamic was different where Brown was ahead in the polls most of the time but had lackluster fundraising, I would be more concerned.
What would help is if there would be a breakdown of how many donations are from OH residents.
FYI, if most of Brown's donations are from OH, then Bernie Moreno is likely going to be in trouble heading to November.
"these fundraising numbers signify his ability to do effective fundraising." Obviously, and not the question.
Still hard to believe, but this poll has Osborn (I) up in NE-Sen 47-42:
https://x.com/stella2020woof/status/1841566221394702609
Yep. But I’m still not convinced.
NSRC has gone into Nebraska and started spending money there.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4901835-nebraska-senate-race-fischer-spending/amp/
Osborn is definitley helped with his last name being similar to the famous head coach
Who was also a congressman.
This is too much Hopium for me; I'd like a more reputable source
Hopium & Simon are making amazing things happen. The community was an early major investor in Ruben Gallego’s Senate candidacy, and in North Carolina’s Democratic Party, which is chaired by the amazing Anderson Clayton (age 26!).
Just saying.
Can you link to the poll or ID the pollster? Not an Elon user.
Bullfinch Group poll 400 response
Thanks. 400 LVs. Shows Trump up by 11.
Correct but can we really believe that NE-Senate?(I'd love it to be true, but damn, that's a lot of wishful thinking)
I’m slowly becoming a believer. There’s a lurker on here who works on the campaign, and sorry for not remembering your name, but you mentioned this race just before the site switch and then again soon after. Would really like to hear your thoughts now.
What really opened my eyes though was a late August poll which showed Osborne down 1, but Ricketts up 17 in the special. That mitigates any challenges to a polling error imo. Combined with increased spending for Fischer I’m starting to re-think seats 50+. Originally it was MT>TX/FL>NE/MO but latest evidence seems to be TX>NE>FL/MT>MO. To use a betting analogy, I’d put about even odds on a +52 Senate for either party at this point.
I am a gambler but I am staying away from betting on the Senate;(I am betting on Harris and a Democratic House); but, I can actually see a 50\50 Senate shaping up here, if Florida and Texas and Nebraska(!!) are truly in play; I know very little about Deb Fischer, but definitely Scott and Cruz are unpopular politicians, which brings me hope
Polls aside, I'm a believer if for no other reason than that we shouldn't concede any elections. Moreover, it's also a matter of reaching out to voters with a progressive platform, or at least an alternative to the toxicity that MAGAs offer. If folks like Osborn don't bother to reach out to these voters in places like Nebraska, then they will continue to be exposed only to disinformation and toxicity from the GOP and their corrupt allies, while Democrats continue to ignore and neglect them. Like with Lucas Kunce in Missouri, you have to start somewhere if you ever hope to reach out to voters.
Even odds on 52 for the Democrats? That's very bold!
All I can find is that it's a Republican firm(but can't find the Bullfinch Group in the entire 538 database); the owner Brett Lloyd was with The Polling company and has links to Kelly Anne Conway; so, I don't know how to judge this frankly unbelievable poll
It's sponsored by something called "The Independent Center", which appears at a cursory glance to be exactly what it sounds like - partisan I (as odd as that may seem). One should probably read this like an internal Osborn poll.
Thank you!
Poll has Trump up 48-38, so add 10 points to the republicans basically. At the end of the day 80% of the republicans are going to vote for the republican and that's more than enough.
I don't think we should give this poll any credibility
here are all the other polls that show a close race.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/senate/2024/nebraska/general/
the remaining undecideds are probably Republican leaning but mutiple pollsters have now shown it’s a close race
I am just saying that we should be very wary of this particular poll; I agree that this race has now gotten on the radar but let's step back a little for now and let it go another couple of weeks; hopefully with some more reputable pollster(damn I wish that race had a selzer\marquette type local expert or a Ralston blog for close-up reporting)
Maybe, but not if a clear majority of undecideds end up voting Republican.
none at all?
Nope; but I would give that Survey USA poll recently showing Osborn plus1 lots of credence(and of course, following the money, BOTH sides are spending real money)
Another thing is that with no Democrat or 3rd party candidates(other than the technically Independent Osborn)in the race, it's a straight up or down vote between the 2; apparently Fischer has refused to debate, which could play on the margins
Wow! If he wins, I'll be really glad I contributed to his campaign!
Probably so.
Probably suggestive that Bullfinch isn’t a top tier pollster…
Without more corroboration, I'm putting Bullfinch Group just this side of Trafalgar
FWIW a lot of these polls in Nebraska aren't partisan pollsters. Many are nonpartisan or even right leaning and those like SurveyUSA are quite reputable. I guess we'll find out how this plays out.