I’m skeptical anything has happened from their previous pre debate polls that would move the race in Trumps direction and the Siena polls seem to be on the right end of “credible” polls. Doesn’t mean they’re for sure off the mark but seems like the outlier from the rest of the pack.
I’m skeptical anything has happened from their previous pre debate polls that would move the race in Trumps direction and the Siena polls seem to be on the right end of “credible” polls. Doesn’t mean they’re for sure off the mark but seems like the outlier from the rest of the pack.
AZ Hispanic sub-sample is only Harris +8. I mean, I suppose we could see the entire state of Arizona pull a Rio Grande Valley, but it didn't in 2020, so I'm not sure why we should expect it to now...
Kelly in 2022 was +18 with latinos so depends on the race. Not sure what was so appealing by that evil creature Lake. Has there been slippage amongst Latinos across the board, yes.
Yeah, Hobbs won Santa Cruz county (83% Latino) by 33 points. No way that happens if Latinos are just D+4 statewide, especially as urban Latinos as a group consistently vote to the left of rural Latinos.
We lost more statewide races than we won in AZ in 2022, but traded up to Gov and AG. Most of our losing candidates, including SPI, made the mistake of going with AZ’s obsolete public funding system and got massively outspent.
We also have to elect candidates that can raise an adequate amount of money to compete for positions that are well funded by business interests (state mine inspector, corporation commission).
While candidate quality matters, the main thing here is to get donors used to donating down ballot after several decades in which most Dem candidates below the top few spots went for the very successful public financing option passed at the ballot. We’re already seeing that happen, see some swing legislative races. it just hasn’t been total yet, as it now needs to be. Or we could get a trifecta and fix the public financing scheme, but I don’t see that happening. Easier for now to just out raise the GOP on ActBlue.
We won’t win mine inspector again unless/until we are seen as the “safe and clean mining party” rather than the “no mining party”or the state becomes entirely urban liberal. Fortunately it’s no longer a particularly broadly powerful position.
Of course there is work to do and these are probably Harris' 3 toughest swing states, but the NYT has been very much trying to drive a horse race narrative and the Siena polls often move contrary to other polling firms.
We do ourselves no favors by just rejecting polls we don't like. We were absolutely right to trash the "unskewed polls" nonsense that the Romney camp made in 2012. Let's not turn around and do the same thing.
It’s fair to point out a 10 point swing to Trump pre to post disaster debate is unlikely. That may mean the first Harris +5 poll was too optimistic or the more recent +5 Trump poll is too pessimistic or both are off. Pointing out werid swings is not the same as saying everything is fine do no work and ignore the polls (though in general that might be healthy). The article itself states that polling average is to the left of sienas polls. Siena May be more accurate than the average or less.
Their PA Harris +4 and national tied from a bit back is literaallly impossible in the physical universe we occupy.
A combo of bad sample, having to make 10,000 calls per respones, small minority responses with extrapolations, and, IMHO, a flawed model of the 2024 electorate.
NYTimes polls
AZ Trump +5
GA Trump +4
NC Trump +2
I’m skeptical anything has happened from their previous pre debate polls that would move the race in Trumps direction and the Siena polls seem to be on the right end of “credible” polls. Doesn’t mean they’re for sure off the mark but seems like the outlier from the rest of the pack.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/23/us/politics/times-siena-polls-arizona-georgia-north-carolina.html?unlocked_article_code=1.M04.8WFl.4SE9eKAiq7S6&smid=url-share
I’d say far-right end of credible.
That said, I keep hoping to see national polls and polls in a handful of swing states move to +5 Harris.
AZ Hispanic sub-sample is only Harris +8. I mean, I suppose we could see the entire state of Arizona pull a Rio Grande Valley, but it didn't in 2020, so I'm not sure why we should expect it to now...
It also didn't in 2022, when the only major statewide race we lost was superintendent of education.
We also lost the AZ Treasurer race, but that was never expected to be competitive.
They also ran a normal Republican that we didn't legitimately challenge.
Actually exit polls said Hobbs only won Latinos by +4, she increased her percentage of whites compared to Biden which she only lost by a point 49-50
Does that track that Arizona Latinos have become that Republican?
Kelly in 2022 was +18 with latinos so depends on the race. Not sure what was so appealing by that evil creature Lake. Has there been slippage amongst Latinos across the board, yes.
I don't think so, not if you look at precinct-level data.
Just another indication that exit polls not designed to accurately sub sample minorities will not do so.
I can tell you right now there is no way that accurately reflects actual voting.
Yeah, Hobbs won Santa Cruz county (83% Latino) by 33 points. No way that happens if Latinos are just D+4 statewide, especially as urban Latinos as a group consistently vote to the left of rural Latinos.
We lost more statewide races than we won in AZ in 2022, but traded up to Gov and AG. Most of our losing candidates, including SPI, made the mistake of going with AZ’s obsolete public funding system and got massively outspent.
Hopefully a lesson learned
Only if we nominate candidates who give up this notion of public funding because “right thing to do.”
We also have to elect candidates that can raise an adequate amount of money to compete for positions that are well funded by business interests (state mine inspector, corporation commission).
While candidate quality matters, the main thing here is to get donors used to donating down ballot after several decades in which most Dem candidates below the top few spots went for the very successful public financing option passed at the ballot. We’re already seeing that happen, see some swing legislative races. it just hasn’t been total yet, as it now needs to be. Or we could get a trifecta and fix the public financing scheme, but I don’t see that happening. Easier for now to just out raise the GOP on ActBlue.
We won’t win mine inspector again unless/until we are seen as the “safe and clean mining party” rather than the “no mining party”or the state becomes entirely urban liberal. Fortunately it’s no longer a particularly broadly powerful position.
Corp commission we are competitive for, but are not running real campaigns. Also, off-cycle SRP elections have real power and are basically ignored.
There's work to do. Ignoring polls because they aren't positive is a bad idea.
Yeah never said there was no work to do or to ignore the polls just pointing out what’s In The article.
More like work should continue as opposed to arguing Harris is behind.
Of course there is work to do and these are probably Harris' 3 toughest swing states, but the NYT has been very much trying to drive a horse race narrative and the Siena polls often move contrary to other polling firms.
The swing of AZ from +5 Harris pre debate to +5 Trump post-debate is nonsensical.
Now seems like a good time to start ignoring the polls and just focus on GOTV in any of the 7 key swing states.
We do ourselves no favors by just rejecting polls we don't like. We were absolutely right to trash the "unskewed polls" nonsense that the Romney camp made in 2012. Let's not turn around and do the same thing.
It’s fair to point out a 10 point swing to Trump pre to post disaster debate is unlikely. That may mean the first Harris +5 poll was too optimistic or the more recent +5 Trump poll is too pessimistic or both are off. Pointing out werid swings is not the same as saying everything is fine do no work and ignore the polls (though in general that might be healthy). The article itself states that polling average is to the left of sienas polls. Siena May be more accurate than the average or less.
I'll take door #3 (both off). Harris probably isn't behind in AZ by 5 now, and likely never was or will be up by 5 there either.
Less than a point win in both 2020 and 2022 lends one to believe neither is correct.
Nah, just NYT.
Their PA Harris +4 and national tied from a bit back is literaallly impossible in the physical universe we occupy.
A combo of bad sample, having to make 10,000 calls per respones, small minority responses with extrapolations, and, IMHO, a flawed model of the 2024 electorate.