Yes and no. It usually happens once a week where you'll do 1 event, maybe a 2nd where you go to a local business but you spend a bunch of time at a hotel or your local campaign headquarters doing interviews, Which is what I'm guessing will happen on Monday. She'll probably do multiple events in the same city on Tuesday, ditto Wednesday.
She still has her current job to do and 2 back to back hurricanes federal emergency response and raising money. Either you don’t understand the full picture of everything she has to handle every day, or you have unrealistic expectations given her circumstances.
Does she still have to spend her own time raising more money, now that her campaign has raised over $1 billion? And how much day-to-day responsibility does a VP have that others can't cover?
2020 and 2022. Both elections registered Rs had higher turnout than Ds, by a lot in 2022. Hence more Ds (long term residents) marked as inactive. Esp those on the coastal plains.
The downside: the inner coastal plains still have a substantial chunk registered White Democrats being Dixiecrats. Wilmington area saw some population explosion of over 10%, if anything the newcomers is more or less even. OBX counties also have 10% increase, (population centers of them are actually inside Albemarle /Pamlico sound, some people call them inner banks. I don’t like the name) and the newcomers there overwhelmingly Republican.
The upside, a lot of transplants to the suburb/exurbs of Triangle and Charlotte, registered as NPAs but quite D leaning. Asheville and surrounding suburbs are getting bluer.
My guess is today’s nominal 120k D registration edge worth more than the 400k+ edge four years ago.
I would say Rs have a teeny tiny voter base edge there, much smaller than 4 years ago. D base voters in the suburbs generally have slightly higher turnout than average, but the Black voters in city center and the east plains usually have lower than average turnout.
So overall I would say, NC polls are meaningless now. Whoever wins the turnout wins it. The margin may be down to how Asheville or “inner banks” vote.
BTW, the mail votes banked so far, of course a lot from suburbs and quite blue right now. The red coasts are actually much bluer at this moment than they would be finally, with Ds there return ballots early.
The inner coastal plains/Black belt’s turnout is slow and looks very red. A lot of Dixiecrats, and Black voters are not into VBM that much.
So I don’t know much to say, other than that we have to see some in person voting to know the turnout pattern.
So you don't have to click the link unless you want to: the word is "retarded." So then, a "retarded" woman beat the shit out of him in the debate. He is such a baby!
Possible in a strong Democratic year. It's an R+4 district. 2Q reports showed Kiley with a cash advantage of $2.6M to $1.3M over Jessica Morse. I'm waiting to see the 3Q numbers but it looks like Morse is fighting an uphill battle in lean-R terrain. All of the ratings orgs rate it as "Likely R."
Jessica Morse seems like a good candidate. She ran before in a different version of the district and was in the mid-40s. She is the underdog in the race, but I sent her a few bucks. If she wins, we will have had a great election.
I get the sense that he isn't especially unpopular for a purple-district Republican. He takes constituent service seriously and is much more of a 90s Republican than a MAGA type. He's a better fit for a relatively educated outer-suburban district than Trump is. If he loses, it will be because Trump dragged him down and because too many Democrats moved into Folsom and west Roseville, not because of any self-inflicted wounds.
I will be up in CA-27 starting next week to campaign for George Whitesides working to defeat Mike Garcia. "Mike Garcia" is just Californian for "Mike Johnson". I think this will be the year that Mike runs out of luck.
I'm glad your working this district. I believe it's the most likely of the SoCal seats to pickup, but the ads against Whitesides are brutal.
In SoCal, the Republicans are running ads tying crime, prop 36, anti Gascon and trying to tie other candidates to "the crime program" and crime from the border, even if statistics don't support it.
That's my district. The race is certainly heavily contested. Both of them are running a lot of ads, and I've actually seen more for Morse. Kiley is definitely acting worried, he's running quite a few negative ads (as is Morse).
The district is only Trump +2, and Kiley won by about 7 in 2022 when there was no statewide Dem campaign effort. I'd expect Kiley to win by a few points even if the district flips.
I think Morse would have had a much better chance this year if the CA Dems had not lost so many competitive races in 2022. The party's focus this year is on winning those seats (13, 22, 27, 45) as well as holding 47 and winning 41.
Hats off to Adam Schiff (who could coast in the senate race) for spending time and money in these competitive house districts. And I have heard he is going to, and spending in, CA-3.
I am very interested to see Kiley's and Morse's 3Q reports in a few days.
It recently occurred to me that despite my reputation for pessimism, I have never in my life predicted a Republican would win the Presidency....
I was too young to be in the prediction business for the elections of the 1980s.
Bill Clinton's victories in 1992 and 1996 were both easy to see coming.
Even in 2000, when Bush appeared to have the late momentum, virtually every poll in Florida showed Gore leading and I figured he'd win the Electoral College if he won Florida even if he lost the popular vote. Of course, the opposite happened.
In 2004, I was convinced the undecideds would break overwhelmingly for Kerry, putting Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, and Florida into Kerry's column.
Obama's 2008 win was an easy call by the time the general election cycle came around and his 2012 re-election seemed odds-on through the majority of the campaign.
I was warning about the potential of Trump throughout 2016 but still didn't see a path to victory for him even in the final days before the election as too many states seemed locked down for Hillary.
Biden's victory seemed nearly assured by the fall of 2020, even if it was much more of a contest than expected.
As of this writing, it looks like my Democratic Presidential prediction streak will end in 2024 but we'll see what the next couple of weeks bring.
I never make predictions of presidential contests, but it didn't look the least bit hopeful for Dukakis. I don't think I allowed myself to think Mondale would lose until he did, and then by almost 50 states! But it was hardly surprising that he lost, and I understood that people who had voted for Reagan in 1980 wouldn't have enough of a motivation to change their votes, even though they should have. Carter also looked in bad shape in 1980. Since I was 15 in 1980 and wasn't even in the country in 1976, those were the only elections I was aware enough of to see in advance that they were unlikely Democratic wins. Every presidential election since 1992 has looked winnable.
The first presidential election I followed had to have been and hopefully remains the most unusual. I was about 10 in 1968, and my Dad had me following Nixon. Of course in the spring of that year MLK was assassinated, then Bobby Kennedy the night of the California primary.
My dad was a big Nixon supporter, but didn't get to vote for him. On Nov 1, he had a massive heart attack and was hospitalized for almost 2 weeks before he died. The day after his funeral mom decided to relocate to Arizona against me and my brother's wishes.
My brother and I both left Arizona at the first opportunity we had. I've been in California for 43 years, my brother in Illinois/Wisconsin for 50 years, and Mom in California for 3 years, and she likes California better.
My 3 older siblings were all leaving AZ after high school in the early 80's as well, but none ended up in CA despite that still being the promised land for AZ teenagers back then. I did come to CA, after college, for what I then thought was a temporary sojourn, 26 years ago now, by which time the huge net influx from AZ had begun reversing.
just an anecdote about CA: lived here for all my 79 years; a high school buddy who was badly poisioned by Agent Orange in Vietnam was living in FL when he contacted me out of the blue a few years ago. Said he had everything but cancer from Agent Orange. He wanted to leave FL (because of the weather) and I asked him if he was moving back to CA. Hell no, he said, their politics suck so bad I am going to live in a senior community near Lake Havasu, AZ: I love the fact I can carry a gun! He died 6 months after moving to AZ.
And Mom just cast a vote for Harris, Schiff,Min, and D all the way down, plus just took a cross country airplane trip by herself. I'll never get that old, lol.
My first was 2008 as well. I wasn't particularly interested in politics at that time (just a first year PhD student) but was stunned by how dimwitted Sarah Palin sounded during her interview with Katie Couric and even more stunned when finding out she was the VP nominee for a major party. That was when I started paying attention.
I was shocked by Palin's nomination as well, she made Dan Quayle look like an inspired choice. Thankfully by the time she was nominated I was both "Never GOP" AND already sure Obama was winning so I didn't ever have to sweat her proximity to the Oval Office.
I've wrongly gone through this thought process several times. My first election was 1980 (I was almost 22), and I couldn't believe people saw presidential material in Ronnie, let alone twice. Then W Bush came along who I thought was too stupid to get elected.
Then came Trump and he made Reagan and Bush look good.
Yeah, I never thought the late war criminal and plutocrat GHWB was a genius, but by comparison with Raygun, Shrub, and the Oval Office Orangutan he's a gentleman, a scholar, and a statesman.
Wouldn't we be dancing on the tables about a Palin Presidency if it was a choice between her and Trump? At the very least, I don't think Palin is a sociopath.
2004 did have some critical things happen in Bush's electoral favor since 2000.
That said, this country is in an electoral environment where presidential elections look likely to be closely contested for the foreseeable future. It's where our coalitions are plus the shitty rules that are in place.
"2004 did have some critical things happen in Bush's electoral favor since 2000."
Yes indeed. He ignored warnings so that he didn't prevent the worst single act of terrorism on American soil, promoted and decorated those who also ignored the warnings while firing some of those who gave them, and then attacked and occupied two countries, one of which had done absolutely nothing to the U.S. during his presidency. The fact that he was instead treated as the necessary protector of the United States whom it was unpatriotic to oppose should give us a lot of pause in predicting how a majority of the American electorate may evaluate Trump today. Remember, they're convinced the economy was better under his disastrous stewardship than during this historic recovery.
Fully agreed. It was bullshit that his incompetence made him more popular. But at the end of the day, that was the reality of it and it did boost him in 2004.
Considering how astronomically his approvals went up, I think in a kinder alternative timeline 2004 would have been a small wave in our favor, like 2008 was.
In politics, a lot of the time, perception is more important than reality; the perception about Bush Jr was that he was a tough Texan; yet, the reality was that it was actually Kerry who was a decorated veteran; I still feel that a more strongly response to the 'swift boating' and quicker was needed
Because the electorate has decided to pretend that COVID didn't happen. We can point out all we want that it did. They would and will continue to dismiss it as "fearmongering."
He made his share of mistakes but he outran the fundamentals of the cycle and wrestled Bush's approval ratings down at least 10% over the course of the campaign. I don't think he seems so bad in retrospect.
Huh. I've been voting since 1988 and the only election I really got wrong was 2016. I was 'who knows?' about 2000 and 2004, though.
Trump could win this year, but I don't see a reason to expect it. Harris has small poll leads (especially if you exclude troll polls) in enough states to win, and I don't expect Trump to benefit from a polling error again: the current generic ballot test is less favorable for Dems than both parties' spending patterns suggest, demographic creep should favor Dems (relevant when most polls are weighting to recalled vote), and Dems appear to have a ground game advantage this year after the pandemic put them at a disadvantage in 2020.
Great post; I think when all is said and done, the Democratic GOTV will provide a crucial 2-3% advantage in all 7 swing states(bringing them all into a possible winning sweep; with Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania being key; the rest being icing on the cake)
Hopefully after the other day in Detroit, those blue and blue-leaning areas of Michigan will be out in large numbers for Kamala. Will be hilarious if Trump lost Michigan now, after the horrible lies he spoke about Detroit (while in Detroit). Serves him right!! 💙🇺🇲
I could see it helping turnout for us in Detroit itself, but it's important to note that, despite the truth being the opposite, many in this state outside of Detroit view it the way Trump described. This is true even in the inner ring suburbs. Racism is a hell of a mental illness.
I have to believe that it's a net negative statewide; it would seem to me that anyone that liked that stuff was already strongly MAGA; undecided voters are undecided for a reason and this stuff can't be helpful to Trump imo
Imo it might actually benefit inner city turnout; pissing people off is not a great political message; I'd also add that Trump has just given a booster to the Democratic GOTV effort by pissing them off into working even harder to show Trump up(we shall see I guess)
I'm not talking about just Republicans though. There is a lot of hate from the suburbs toward Detroit, and almost all of it is racialized, even if they won't admit it.
Do I think it gains any votes for Trump? No. But I'm skeptical that it loses him any significant number of votes.
The latest Times/Inquirer/Siena polls found Donald Trump with a six-point advantage in Arizona, and Kamala Harris with a four-point lead in Pennsylvania.
That's quite the spread but if I had to choose, I'm obviously choosing Pennsylvania; I'm still betting that Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are going to vote as a block(with closer to larger margin in this order; Wisc>Penn>Mich)
Siena has now found a double-digit spread in Florida and a six-point spread in Arizona. It could be that they're way off or it could be that Siena's model is picking up on a shift to Trump among Hispanics that other pollsters are not.
What isn't often acknowledged is that racism isn't limited to white people. In Phoenix, in areas that are Latino and Black, there is friction. I personally know some Latino neighbors in Arizona who voted for Biden who won't vote for Harris.
This isn't limited to Arizona by any means. In LA, the Kevin DeLeon controversy involved Latinos being anti black, but also anti other Latino groups.
Machismo could play a role. I again feel disconnected from how anyone can see a man who inherited 400 million dollars from daddy and has never stopped whining about how hard his life is for him to be "macho" but some people just really hate the idea of women and women of color running anything.
While I’m sure Hispanic male Trump voters are probably more likely to vote for Gallego than white male Trump voters, given the relative proportions the demographics among Trump voters, I’d bet a fair amount that white male Trump voters voting for Gallego outnumber their Hispanic male counterparts. There are an order of magnitude more white Trump voters than Hispanic Trump voters in AZ.
Not the tipping point state certainly but honestly, I think Gallego will wipe the floor with Lake (can't wait to see her go into crazy mode; They Stole It Again!!!!!!!)
Sorry, poorly worded, 19% of the sample was Hispanic in AZ, to take the survey in Spanish required answering a callback, if they wrote their methodology correctly, only 2% not 2 percentage points, of the Hispanic respondents were surveyed in Spanish. That’s 3 people.
Aside from the obvious response rate issue, projections already predict that as much as a quarter of the electorate in Arizona alone will be Hispanic. In terms of statistics, that means this poll and prolly others, undersampled Hispanic voters by as much as 4-5%. In a swing state with a sizable share of Hispanic voters that's a damn big deal. I hope they're not trying to "correct" this with some weighing bs like saying "Dems are expected to win less Hispanic and black voters each year" which has minimal basis and is purely speculation.
There's a decent possibility that Arizona may be the new Nevada in terms of unpredictable polling. Hispanic voters comprise a whopping 30% of the electorate roughly on both states alone and it's already tricky enough as it is to reach out to younger voters for polling. Combine that with the difficulty of training and getting multilingual staff and outreach to many voters who may otherwise be unreachable. This is also often true with Asian voters who also make up a sizable, tho much smaller share of the electorate. If that wasn't enough Arizona also has a decent chunk of indigenous voters, who are often hard to reach and the language barriers there are even more challenging. Hard to say whether the pollsters are overcompensating for any MAGA effect or not. Still, just look at the AZ Governor race and see how wildly off the polls were, and mind you this was including many left leaning and reputable nonpartisan pollsters too.
The regional cross tabs mirror what I consider to be our path to victory in Pennsylvania: running up the score in Allegheny (67-31) while closing the gap in South Central PA (47-50) to compensate for slippage in Philly (77-20) and a clear loss in the West (39-56).
Kamala should also do much better than reported for the Philly suburbs (53-43), assuming that includes Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery. She'll win the latter three by a minimum 15 (more likely a minimum 20, possibly 30+ in DelCo and MontCo) while winning Bucks by +/- 5.
Definitely still a toss-up for sure, but considering the EV trends and polling from non-partisan sources, I'd rather be us.
I hope you're right, and you very well could be. In 2020, Hispanic neighborhoods in North Philly shifted noticeably right; my worry is they'll continue to slip this election, too. The Philly early vote is also lagging other Dem counties. Fingers crossed for a strong showing on election day.
Two things would have to happen but both seem plausible.....
First, the spread in Florida would have to be as wide as Siena's poll indicated, or at least in that ballpark, while the large shift toward Trump in New York would have to happen and shave mid-six-figure vote totals from Harris compared to Biden.
And second, the advertised swing to Trump by Hispanic and Black men would have to materialize. In 2020, one out of nine Hispanics who went for Hillary flipped to Trump. If that happened again, it would probably not be picked up by poll modeling and would enlarge Trump's margins in Texas and shrink them in California. It would affect other states too, of course, but the point is that if demographic trends pumped up Trump's numbers substantially in the four largest states in the country, it'd go a long way toward a national popular vote win.
From where things sit today, I'm betting it's a 50-50 proposition.
I'm with you; imo Trump has a hard ceiling of roughly 46% nationwide and in 2016 Hillary ran at 48% to Trump's 46%; I feel like Harris will run at least 1% minimum more than Hillary to make her floor somewhere in the 48-49% range(that gives you roughly 5% leftover; and out of those I'd give roughly half to third party votes); this gives us Trump 46-47%; Harris 50-51%; and combined others at 2-3%
A month or so ago I thought Harris would win the popular vote by 4-7 points. Now I'm thinking 2-7 points as the polls are not as good as I thought they would be at this point. I still think that if Trump benefits from a polling error it's likely to be modest, while Harris could potentially get a big one.
The reality is that there are millions of available jobs that Americans simply won't apply for or work them(the govt put out a report over the summer from the CBO pointing out the next 20 years of actuarial data stating just how much MORE immigration our economy needs to be efficient, not less)
"Trump leads Harris among swing-state voters, 50% to 39%, on who is best able to handle Russia’s war in Ukraine and has a wider advantage, 48% to 33%, on who is better suited to handle the Israel-Hamas war."
The Wall St. Journal is paywalled, so I don't know whether this is a poll of registered or some modeling of "likely" voters.
All that said, I think we ought to be very cautious about assuming Harris will win, given that voters seem to trust Trump more on the economy, immigration, and now on wars. They are seriously, dangerously wrong, but they will determine who wins the election in each state unless the Supreme Court annuls their votes or there is some other kind of theft. This poll may have the same problems as others, and their models may be flawed, but if they're not, we should consider Harris in danger and act accordingly.
That is crazy - he will give the Ukraine to Putin (leading to more offensive attacks by him; he will let Netanyahu annihilate the Palestinians in Gaza . Neither of these paths will lead to peace. They will encourage strong men to attack the vulnerable.
I know we shouldn't discount any polls we don't like but I refuse to take seriously any poll/pollster connected to Murdoch...he has his agenda and will do what he needs to do in order to control the dialogue.
Is there any record of Wall Street Journal polls being manipulated? Fox News polls are reputable, in spite of the organization. I don't think we should assume guilt by association.
Not directly related to your post, but imo fox(and the other right-wing outlets) will run that same 'RED WAVE' !!!!! BS from the last cycle; so maybe not the polling side of fox, but definitely the 'news' side will act disreputable
Do you think anyone reading needs to be convinced that an entertainment organization with "news" in its name that's had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for libel is disreputable?
it says right there that the pollster Wall Street Journal used is a Democratic pollster and Fabrizio/Lee Associates. Fabrizio is Trump’s internal pollster. There have been many polls that Fabrizio has been jointly putting out recently to affect the narrative
Somewhat off topic(apologies);But Florida amendment 3(the marijuana amendment)Direct mailers are almost all geared to the seniors in our state on the pro side(which I just find fascinating in a way);not that I am disagreeing with the strategy in any way; it just kinda sez Jimmy Buffet voters, here we come !
This is probably an overly broad generalization, but I don't think direct mail has much effect on younger voters. (It just goes straight into the recycling) Older voters generally read it first, at least.
It may be a strategy unique to MAGAs and Trump, but satire seems highly effective at derailing and sapping any momentum and energy outta them. Apparently just a few days ago Trump made another attack on Jimmy Kimmel for a joke he made about him at the Oscars nearly 7 months ago. Trump can dish out a lot of insults, but ironically he's very bad at taking insults. Satire can be a very effective tool and weapon.
This is a little complicated, so click the link, but here's part of it:
"If someone mistakenly says they voted for Biden in 2020 but had actually voted for Trump, and then says they plan to vote for Trump in 2024, it will look like there’s been a shift toward Trump when there actually hasn’t been.”
How many people actually forget who they voted for in past Presidential elections? I have a hard time believing they make up a significant percentage of the electorate.
They always convince themselves they actually voted for the winner; it's a weird coping mechanism(this was literally taught to me in politics sci 101); it's very strange because the ballot now is a secret ballot and the election is over
Is it normal to still only be doing one event a day in mid-October? At least pre-2016?
Yes and no. It usually happens once a week where you'll do 1 event, maybe a 2nd where you go to a local business but you spend a bunch of time at a hotel or your local campaign headquarters doing interviews, Which is what I'm guessing will happen on Monday. She'll probably do multiple events in the same city on Tuesday, ditto Wednesday.
She still has her current job to do and 2 back to back hurricanes federal emergency response and raising money. Either you don’t understand the full picture of everything she has to handle every day, or you have unrealistic expectations given her circumstances.
Does she still have to spend her own time raising more money, now that her campaign has raised over $1 billion? And how much day-to-day responsibility does a VP have that others can't cover?
That's exactly the point Rosenberg is making in the tweets
I think we all know that many progressive voters, especially younger ones, tend to be independents.
What’s considered an “active voter”?
2020 and 2022. Both elections registered Rs had higher turnout than Ds, by a lot in 2022. Hence more Ds (long term residents) marked as inactive. Esp those on the coastal plains.
All inactive voters have plenty of notice to get back on the rolls; laziness is always a factor
The downside: the inner coastal plains still have a substantial chunk registered White Democrats being Dixiecrats. Wilmington area saw some population explosion of over 10%, if anything the newcomers is more or less even. OBX counties also have 10% increase, (population centers of them are actually inside Albemarle /Pamlico sound, some people call them inner banks. I don’t like the name) and the newcomers there overwhelmingly Republican.
The upside, a lot of transplants to the suburb/exurbs of Triangle and Charlotte, registered as NPAs but quite D leaning. Asheville and surrounding suburbs are getting bluer.
My guess is today’s nominal 120k D registration edge worth more than the 400k+ edge four years ago.
If you are correct(I don't doubt it); then NC is 50\50 with our side holding a better gotv hand; would you agree?
Yes.
I would say Rs have a teeny tiny voter base edge there, much smaller than 4 years ago. D base voters in the suburbs generally have slightly higher turnout than average, but the Black voters in city center and the east plains usually have lower than average turnout.
So overall I would say, NC polls are meaningless now. Whoever wins the turnout wins it. The margin may be down to how Asheville or “inner banks” vote.
BTW, the mail votes banked so far, of course a lot from suburbs and quite blue right now. The red coasts are actually much bluer at this moment than they would be finally, with Ds there return ballots early.
The inner coastal plains/Black belt’s turnout is slow and looks very red. A lot of Dixiecrats, and Black voters are not into VBM that much.
So I don’t know much to say, other than that we have to see some in person voting to know the turnout pattern.
What is obx?
Outer banks?
That makes sense.
So you don't have to click the link unless you want to: the word is "retarded." So then, a "retarded" woman beat the shit out of him in the debate. He is such a baby!
I mean, he really talks like an elementary school idiot.
And unfortunately millions LOVE him for that. His cult never emotionally left elementary school.
And they were assholes then.
He called her a 'bitch' in public, frankly I think by now, he can say and do almost any outrageous thing and folks will shrug their shoulders
Republican voters actively want to degrade and insult their opponents, and Democratic voters already hate him and won't have their decisions altered.
Republican?
This won't change 10 votes; Trump is Trump
Nothing is offensive anymore (thanks to Trump)
You mean nothing is offensive to Trumpists. There are plenty of things that are still offensive to other people.
That is what I meant yes; thanks
Not true - even the most blatantly obvious and true criticism of Trump or GOP is "offensive" to Trumpets
RIght.
He's so close to dropping the n-word between now and election day.
Will even that change anything? Call me unconvinced
I still think Anna Paulina Luna is beatable
Nice, I donated and then
doubled down for Fox to defeat her (FL-13)
ca-03...can Kevin Kiley be beaten?
Possible in a strong Democratic year. It's an R+4 district. 2Q reports showed Kiley with a cash advantage of $2.6M to $1.3M over Jessica Morse. I'm waiting to see the 3Q numbers but it looks like Morse is fighting an uphill battle in lean-R terrain. All of the ratings orgs rate it as "Likely R."
Thanks for the info!
Jessica Morse seems like a good candidate. She ran before in a different version of the district and was in the mid-40s. She is the underdog in the race, but I sent her a few bucks. If she wins, we will have had a great election.
Is Kiley unpopular?
I get the sense that he isn't especially unpopular for a purple-district Republican. He takes constituent service seriously and is much more of a 90s Republican than a MAGA type. He's a better fit for a relatively educated outer-suburban district than Trump is. If he loses, it will be because Trump dragged him down and because too many Democrats moved into Folsom and west Roseville, not because of any self-inflicted wounds.
Here's to hoping he loses(seems like he's what I call a 'sane' Republican)
I don't even especially dislike him, I just won't vote for him.
If you Cali guys get the chance; maybe give us a ground update from your viewpoint on competitive congressional races?
I will be up in CA-27 starting next week to campaign for George Whitesides working to defeat Mike Garcia. "Mike Garcia" is just Californian for "Mike Johnson". I think this will be the year that Mike runs out of luck.
I'm glad your working this district. I believe it's the most likely of the SoCal seats to pickup, but the ads against Whitesides are brutal.
In SoCal, the Republicans are running ads tying crime, prop 36, anti Gascon and trying to tie other candidates to "the crime program" and crime from the border, even if statistics don't support it.
That's my district. The race is certainly heavily contested. Both of them are running a lot of ads, and I've actually seen more for Morse. Kiley is definitely acting worried, he's running quite a few negative ads (as is Morse).
The district is only Trump +2, and Kiley won by about 7 in 2022 when there was no statewide Dem campaign effort. I'd expect Kiley to win by a few points even if the district flips.
I think Morse would have had a much better chance this year if the CA Dems had not lost so many competitive races in 2022. The party's focus this year is on winning those seats (13, 22, 27, 45) as well as holding 47 and winning 41.
Hats off to Adam Schiff (who could coast in the senate race) for spending time and money in these competitive house districts. And I have heard he is going to, and spending in, CA-3.
I am very interested to see Kiley's and Morse's 3Q reports in a few days.
It recently occurred to me that despite my reputation for pessimism, I have never in my life predicted a Republican would win the Presidency....
I was too young to be in the prediction business for the elections of the 1980s.
Bill Clinton's victories in 1992 and 1996 were both easy to see coming.
Even in 2000, when Bush appeared to have the late momentum, virtually every poll in Florida showed Gore leading and I figured he'd win the Electoral College if he won Florida even if he lost the popular vote. Of course, the opposite happened.
In 2004, I was convinced the undecideds would break overwhelmingly for Kerry, putting Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, and Florida into Kerry's column.
Obama's 2008 win was an easy call by the time the general election cycle came around and his 2012 re-election seemed odds-on through the majority of the campaign.
I was warning about the potential of Trump throughout 2016 but still didn't see a path to victory for him even in the final days before the election as too many states seemed locked down for Hillary.
Biden's victory seemed nearly assured by the fall of 2020, even if it was much more of a contest than expected.
As of this writing, it looks like my Democratic Presidential prediction streak will end in 2024 but we'll see what the next couple of weeks bring.
I never make predictions of presidential contests, but it didn't look the least bit hopeful for Dukakis. I don't think I allowed myself to think Mondale would lose until he did, and then by almost 50 states! But it was hardly surprising that he lost, and I understood that people who had voted for Reagan in 1980 wouldn't have enough of a motivation to change their votes, even though they should have. Carter also looked in bad shape in 1980. Since I was 15 in 1980 and wasn't even in the country in 1976, those were the only elections I was aware enough of to see in advance that they were unlikely Democratic wins. Every presidential election since 1992 has looked winnable.
The first presidential election I followed had to have been and hopefully remains the most unusual. I was about 10 in 1968, and my Dad had me following Nixon. Of course in the spring of that year MLK was assassinated, then Bobby Kennedy the night of the California primary.
My dad was a big Nixon supporter, but didn't get to vote for him. On Nov 1, he had a massive heart attack and was hospitalized for almost 2 weeks before he died. The day after his funeral mom decided to relocate to Arizona against me and my brother's wishes.
Quite the year.
How did things turn out in Arizona?
My brother and I both left Arizona at the first opportunity we had. I've been in California for 43 years, my brother in Illinois/Wisconsin for 50 years, and Mom in California for 3 years, and she likes California better.
My 3 older siblings were all leaving AZ after high school in the early 80's as well, but none ended up in CA despite that still being the promised land for AZ teenagers back then. I did come to CA, after college, for what I then thought was a temporary sojourn, 26 years ago now, by which time the huge net influx from AZ had begun reversing.
just an anecdote about CA: lived here for all my 79 years; a high school buddy who was badly poisioned by Agent Orange in Vietnam was living in FL when he contacted me out of the blue a few years ago. Said he had everything but cancer from Agent Orange. He wanted to leave FL (because of the weather) and I asked him if he was moving back to CA. Hell no, he said, their politics suck so bad I am going to live in a senior community near Lake Havasu, AZ: I love the fact I can carry a gun! He died 6 months after moving to AZ.
Wow. Your dad must not have been very old. Had to have been horribly traumatic for you at that age.
45. Yes it was rather traumatic.
Mom just turned 98.
Good luck to your Mom
And Mom just cast a vote for Harris, Schiff,Min, and D all the way down, plus just took a cross country airplane trip by herself. I'll never get that old, lol.
My first was 2008 as well. I wasn't particularly interested in politics at that time (just a first year PhD student) but was stunned by how dimwitted Sarah Palin sounded during her interview with Katie Couric and even more stunned when finding out she was the VP nominee for a major party. That was when I started paying attention.
I was shocked by Palin's nomination as well, she made Dan Quayle look like an inspired choice. Thankfully by the time she was nominated I was both "Never GOP" AND already sure Obama was winning so I didn't ever have to sweat her proximity to the Oval Office.
I took a different tact with Palin; I just laughed hysterically every time she'd give an interview
I've wrongly gone through this thought process several times. My first election was 1980 (I was almost 22), and I couldn't believe people saw presidential material in Ronnie, let alone twice. Then W Bush came along who I thought was too stupid to get elected.
Then came Trump and he made Reagan and Bush look good.
What in the hell has happened to my country?
Yeah, I never thought the late war criminal and plutocrat GHWB was a genius, but by comparison with Raygun, Shrub, and the Oval Office Orangutan he's a gentleman, a scholar, and a statesman.
And a legitimate vet unlike those other wannabes
Wouldn't we be dancing on the tables about a Palin Presidency if it was a choice between her and Trump? At the very least, I don't think Palin is a sociopath.
Gore won the election, the GOP stole the presidency, so you're 6 for 8.
The clear intent of the voters in Florida was to elect Gore; agreed
That one is going to hurt forever....
Tell me about it; I've lived in Florida for over 30 years; and that race still stings the most
trump won't win
The knowledge gained in 2016 that he can win should be enough to keep it from happening again, but that was pretty much true in 2004 as well.
2004 did have some critical things happen in Bush's electoral favor since 2000.
That said, this country is in an electoral environment where presidential elections look likely to be closely contested for the foreseeable future. It's where our coalitions are plus the shitty rules that are in place.
"2004 did have some critical things happen in Bush's electoral favor since 2000."
Yes indeed. He ignored warnings so that he didn't prevent the worst single act of terrorism on American soil, promoted and decorated those who also ignored the warnings while firing some of those who gave them, and then attacked and occupied two countries, one of which had done absolutely nothing to the U.S. during his presidency. The fact that he was instead treated as the necessary protector of the United States whom it was unpatriotic to oppose should give us a lot of pause in predicting how a majority of the American electorate may evaluate Trump today. Remember, they're convinced the economy was better under his disastrous stewardship than during this historic recovery.
Fully agreed. It was bullshit that his incompetence made him more popular. But at the end of the day, that was the reality of it and it did boost him in 2004.
Considering how astronomically his approvals went up, I think in a kinder alternative timeline 2004 would have been a small wave in our favor, like 2008 was.
In politics, a lot of the time, perception is more important than reality; the perception about Bush Jr was that he was a tough Texan; yet, the reality was that it was actually Kerry who was a decorated veteran; I still feel that a more strongly response to the 'swift boating' and quicker was needed
Definitely.
Because the electorate has decided to pretend that COVID didn't happen. We can point out all we want that it did. They would and will continue to dismiss it as "fearmongering."
John Kerry was not a strong candidate and succumbed to lies.
He made his share of mistakes but he outran the fundamentals of the cycle and wrestled Bush's approval ratings down at least 10% over the course of the campaign. I don't think he seems so bad in retrospect.
Huh. I've been voting since 1988 and the only election I really got wrong was 2016. I was 'who knows?' about 2000 and 2004, though.
Trump could win this year, but I don't see a reason to expect it. Harris has small poll leads (especially if you exclude troll polls) in enough states to win, and I don't expect Trump to benefit from a polling error again: the current generic ballot test is less favorable for Dems than both parties' spending patterns suggest, demographic creep should favor Dems (relevant when most polls are weighting to recalled vote), and Dems appear to have a ground game advantage this year after the pandemic put them at a disadvantage in 2020.
Great post; I think when all is said and done, the Democratic GOTV will provide a crucial 2-3% advantage in all 7 swing states(bringing them all into a possible winning sweep; with Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania being key; the rest being icing on the cake)
Hopefully after the other day in Detroit, those blue and blue-leaning areas of Michigan will be out in large numbers for Kamala. Will be hilarious if Trump lost Michigan now, after the horrible lies he spoke about Detroit (while in Detroit). Serves him right!! 💙🇺🇲
I could see it helping turnout for us in Detroit itself, but it's important to note that, despite the truth being the opposite, many in this state outside of Detroit view it the way Trump described. This is true even in the inner ring suburbs. Racism is a hell of a mental illness.
I have to believe that it's a net negative statewide; it would seem to me that anyone that liked that stuff was already strongly MAGA; undecided voters are undecided for a reason and this stuff can't be helpful to Trump imo
I don't think it helps him, but I'm skeptical whether it hurts him all that much, having grown up in the Detroit suburbs.
Imo it might actually benefit inner city turnout; pissing people off is not a great political message; I'd also add that Trump has just given a booster to the Democratic GOTV effort by pissing them off into working even harder to show Trump up(we shall see I guess)
I am going with, he's just a dumb fuck
Republicans in EVERY state hate their state's biggest city. Those people are already Trump voters.
This will help us turn out our voters and will turn off some educated suburban voters
I'm not talking about just Republicans though. There is a lot of hate from the suburbs toward Detroit, and almost all of it is racialized, even if they won't admit it.
Do I think it gains any votes for Trump? No. But I'm skeptical that it loses him any significant number of votes.
didn't he do the same thing essentially with Milwaukee a while back?
He hates every city, weird for a New Yorker.
He's racist
I know, but he's a New Yorker. I don't think most racist New Yorkers hate New York.
Lmao
Yup, just before the Republican convention, which of course was held in(you guessed it) Milwaukee !
The latest Times/Inquirer/Siena polls found Donald Trump with a six-point advantage in Arizona, and Kamala Harris with a four-point lead in Pennsylvania.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/12/us/politics/times-siena-arizona-pennsylvania-polls.html
I'll take it.
That's quite the spread but if I had to choose, I'm obviously choosing Pennsylvania; I'm still betting that Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are going to vote as a block(with closer to larger margin in this order; Wisc>Penn>Mich)
Another interesting thing here: Harris isn't outrunning Casey. Harris +4, Casey +4. Convergence at last...
(This is bullish for Harris IMO. Casey is an institution and if Harris is matching his numbers, that's a good sign).
Six point lead for Trump ehh? Do you think Siena believes that poll is accurate?
Seems awful bullish imo
Siena has now found a double-digit spread in Florida and a six-point spread in Arizona. It could be that they're way off or it could be that Siena's model is picking up on a shift to Trump among Hispanics that other pollsters are not.
It would almost have to be Hispanic men
Reading their methodology, it seems tailor-made for selecting a conservatively skewed Hispanic sample.
But their Hispanic sample is Harris +20. In this particular poll, it's the white vote that is causing a mid-size Trump lead.
(In their earlier Trump+5 in AZ, it was the Hispanic sample. Funny how they get the same topline with entirely different splits).
D+20 Hispanic vote is skewed right in AZ for a Presidential election. Santa Cruz County voted D+35 last time and it’s 1/7th Non-Hispanic White.
how so?
What isn't often acknowledged is that racism isn't limited to white people. In Phoenix, in areas that are Latino and Black, there is friction. I personally know some Latino neighbors in Arizona who voted for Biden who won't vote for Harris.
This isn't limited to Arizona by any means. In LA, the Kevin DeLeon controversy involved Latinos being anti black, but also anti other Latino groups.
I am still not convinced that they vote for Trump(but I get your point)
The thing is, there were people saying similar things about Latino attitudes toward Obama, yet he got huge support from Latinos.
And Obama didn't win Arizona either time, although Arizona has become more Democratic since 2012, and in 2008 an Arizonan was in the race.
Biden only won my 10K votes
Correct. But the general point is the same.
Obama is male, Harris is female though.
Machismo could play a role. I again feel disconnected from how anyone can see a man who inherited 400 million dollars from daddy and has never stopped whining about how hard his life is for him to be "macho" but some people just really hate the idea of women and women of color running anything.
I wonder who the Trump-Gallego voters are.
Me too; Hispanic men???
Probably
While I’m sure Hispanic male Trump voters are probably more likely to vote for Gallego than white male Trump voters, given the relative proportions the demographics among Trump voters, I’d bet a fair amount that white male Trump voters voting for Gallego outnumber their Hispanic male counterparts. There are an order of magnitude more white Trump voters than Hispanic Trump voters in AZ.
In raw numbers; likely
beginning to think more and more that AZ will end up being irrelevant.
Not the tipping point state certainly but honestly, I think Gallego will wipe the floor with Lake (can't wait to see her go into crazy mode; They Stole It Again!!!!!!!)
Only 2% of interviews were conducted in Spanish in AZ. That’s a lousy Hispanic sample.
Sorry, poorly worded, 19% of the sample was Hispanic in AZ, to take the survey in Spanish required answering a callback, if they wrote their methodology correctly, only 2% not 2 percentage points, of the Hispanic respondents were surveyed in Spanish. That’s 3 people.
Aside from the obvious response rate issue, projections already predict that as much as a quarter of the electorate in Arizona alone will be Hispanic. In terms of statistics, that means this poll and prolly others, undersampled Hispanic voters by as much as 4-5%. In a swing state with a sizable share of Hispanic voters that's a damn big deal. I hope they're not trying to "correct" this with some weighing bs like saying "Dems are expected to win less Hispanic and black voters each year" which has minimal basis and is purely speculation.
In AZ 6% of the population is native, and they're at 2% of this sample.
There's a decent possibility that Arizona may be the new Nevada in terms of unpredictable polling. Hispanic voters comprise a whopping 30% of the electorate roughly on both states alone and it's already tricky enough as it is to reach out to younger voters for polling. Combine that with the difficulty of training and getting multilingual staff and outreach to many voters who may otherwise be unreachable. This is also often true with Asian voters who also make up a sizable, tho much smaller share of the electorate. If that wasn't enough Arizona also has a decent chunk of indigenous voters, who are often hard to reach and the language barriers there are even more challenging. Hard to say whether the pollsters are overcompensating for any MAGA effect or not. Still, just look at the AZ Governor race and see how wildly off the polls were, and mind you this was including many left leaning and reputable nonpartisan pollsters too.
The regional cross tabs mirror what I consider to be our path to victory in Pennsylvania: running up the score in Allegheny (67-31) while closing the gap in South Central PA (47-50) to compensate for slippage in Philly (77-20) and a clear loss in the West (39-56).
Kamala should also do much better than reported for the Philly suburbs (53-43), assuming that includes Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery. She'll win the latter three by a minimum 15 (more likely a minimum 20, possibly 30+ in DelCo and MontCo) while winning Bucks by +/- 5.
Definitely still a toss-up for sure, but considering the EV trends and polling from non-partisan sources, I'd rather be us.
I'm not convinced of any slippage in Philly(Imo running up the raw margin in philly is attainable)
Agreed
I hope you're right, and you very well could be. In 2020, Hispanic neighborhoods in North Philly shifted noticeably right; my worry is they'll continue to slip this election, too. The Philly early vote is also lagging other Dem counties. Fingers crossed for a strong showing on election day.
Does anyone here believe that Trump will win the popular vote? If so, why?
Do you have a prediction?
Two things would have to happen but both seem plausible.....
First, the spread in Florida would have to be as wide as Siena's poll indicated, or at least in that ballpark, while the large shift toward Trump in New York would have to happen and shave mid-six-figure vote totals from Harris compared to Biden.
And second, the advertised swing to Trump by Hispanic and Black men would have to materialize. In 2020, one out of nine Hispanics who went for Hillary flipped to Trump. If that happened again, it would probably not be picked up by poll modeling and would enlarge Trump's margins in Texas and shrink them in California. It would affect other states too, of course, but the point is that if demographic trends pumped up Trump's numbers substantially in the four largest states in the country, it'd go a long way toward a national popular vote win.
From where things sit today, I'm betting it's a 50-50 proposition.
It's not impossible, but we have an awful lot of polling on this and it basically all points to Harris +3. Maybe +2 on a bad day or +4 on a good day.
I'm with you; imo Trump has a hard ceiling of roughly 46% nationwide and in 2016 Hillary ran at 48% to Trump's 46%; I feel like Harris will run at least 1% minimum more than Hillary to make her floor somewhere in the 48-49% range(that gives you roughly 5% leftover; and out of those I'd give roughly half to third party votes); this gives us Trump 46-47%; Harris 50-51%; and combined others at 2-3%
Just going by past couple of presidential elections; I am hoping that you are correct; imo the lower that number is, the better for Harris
By the way, what are your numbers??
The post ??
nope: KH=52 Felon=46
All 3 of us are pretty close to one another
A month or so ago I thought Harris would win the popular vote by 4-7 points. Now I'm thinking 2-7 points as the polls are not as good as I thought they would be at this point. I still think that if Trump benefits from a polling error it's likely to be modest, while Harris could potentially get a big one.
What's your current prediction?
Don't put any money on this, but Harris wins by 4 nationally and wins every swing state except maybe Arizona.
So roughly 51-47%?..we all seem to be in the same ballpark(interesting)
https://politicalwire.com/2024/10/12/migrants-arent-taking-jobs-from-blacks-and-hispanics/
I think most of us knew this, but unfortunately, as Goebbels knew, if you repeat a big lie often enough, it becomes true to people.
The reality is that there are millions of available jobs that Americans simply won't apply for or work them(the govt put out a report over the summer from the CBO pointing out the next 20 years of actuarial data stating just how much MORE immigration our economy needs to be efficient, not less)
https://politicalwire.com/2024/10/12/trump-has-clear-edge-on-handling-israel-ukraine-wars/
Per a Wall St. Journal poll:
"Trump leads Harris among swing-state voters, 50% to 39%, on who is best able to handle Russia’s war in Ukraine and has a wider advantage, 48% to 33%, on who is better suited to handle the Israel-Hamas war."
The Wall St. Journal is paywalled, so I don't know whether this is a poll of registered or some modeling of "likely" voters.
All that said, I think we ought to be very cautious about assuming Harris will win, given that voters seem to trust Trump more on the economy, immigration, and now on wars. They are seriously, dangerously wrong, but they will determine who wins the election in each state unless the Supreme Court annuls their votes or there is some other kind of theft. This poll may have the same problems as others, and their models may be flawed, but if they're not, we should consider Harris in danger and act accordingly.
By all means, continue to call me Mark27! I tried to claim that name again but Substack said it was already taken (yet "Mark" wasn't?).
Your point is well-taken about blue county versus red county turnout in 2022.
Can you change it to Mark27a or something like that? I've done that before.
Sounds like a DJ
That's why the GOTV advantage we have is so important(as to farming the Republican gotv out to grifters like Charlie kirk)
Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t turnout among core Ds in 2022 really bad? Like, 2010/14 bad, but we won on persuasion?
2010/14 level of bad turnout only in certain areas in certain states. Everyone remembers Florida and New York?
Also very bad for minority voter dominated areas. Most city centers, rural Black Belt, etc.
Go out on a limb! Do you think KH will win any of the 3: AZ, GA, NC? Even WSJ/Murdoch pollster has KH winning with 278 EVs!
Imo AZ>GA>NC
I suspect Arizona will be so close that we won't know election night, and possibly for several days after. I suspect Arizona could see violence.
I think the violence might depend somewhat on the outcomes in the other battlegrounds
Mark me down for all 3.
That is crazy - he will give the Ukraine to Putin (leading to more offensive attacks by him; he will let Netanyahu annihilate the Palestinians in Gaza . Neither of these paths will lead to peace. They will encourage strong men to attack the vulnerable.
They don't think so because "wars didn't happen when he was President."
Except that we were still at war in Afghanistan.
They don't blame Orange Slob for that. If anything it was "inherited from Obama."
Those are issue where we would typically expect Republicans to be better regarded.
Why would we expect Trump to be better regarded on war?
Because voters think Republicans are tough and Democrats are weak. Voters are morons.
Not because voters are isolationists?
That is a good point, and probably plays into it as well.
Again because "wars didn't happen during his Presidency." They blame Harris for the messes in Iran, I/P, and Ukraine.
That's absolutely stupid. Does anyone understand what Vice President really means?
She's Biden's VP though. They blame her because "Biden started the wars."
I know we shouldn't discount any polls we don't like but I refuse to take seriously any poll/pollster connected to Murdoch...he has his agenda and will do what he needs to do in order to control the dialogue.
Is there any record of Wall Street Journal polls being manipulated? Fox News polls are reputable, in spite of the organization. I don't think we should assume guilt by association.
Not directly related to your post, but imo fox(and the other right-wing outlets) will run that same 'RED WAVE' !!!!! BS from the last cycle; so maybe not the polling side of fox, but definitely the 'news' side will act disreputable
Do you think anyone reading needs to be convinced that an entertainment organization with "news" in its name that's had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for libel is disreputable?
just me but I don't trust them
Do you also not trust Fox News polls?
don't they use a different polling company? one that is supposedly bi-partisan?
It's the same one they've had forever(pretty sure)
it says right there that the pollster Wall Street Journal used is a Democratic pollster and Fabrizio/Lee Associates. Fabrizio is Trump’s internal pollster. There have been many polls that Fabrizio has been jointly putting out recently to affect the narrative
https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-swing-state-poll-trump-1967690
In Bob Woodward’s soon-to-be released book War, Gen. Mark Milley rightly called Donald Trump “a fascist to the core.”
Let’s defeat fascism by electing Kamala Harris!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/11/bob-woodward-book-mark-milley-trump
Drip, drip, drip, drip, continuing
Somewhat off topic(apologies);But Florida amendment 3(the marijuana amendment)Direct mailers are almost all geared to the seniors in our state on the pro side(which I just find fascinating in a way);not that I am disagreeing with the strategy in any way; it just kinda sez Jimmy Buffet voters, here we come !
This is probably an overly broad generalization, but I don't think direct mail has much effect on younger voters. (It just goes straight into the recycling) Older voters generally read it first, at least.
Totally agree; good post
It may be a strategy unique to MAGAs and Trump, but satire seems highly effective at derailing and sapping any momentum and energy outta them. Apparently just a few days ago Trump made another attack on Jimmy Kimmel for a joke he made about him at the Oscars nearly 7 months ago. Trump can dish out a lot of insults, but ironically he's very bad at taking insults. Satire can be a very effective tool and weapon.
Which plays right into Kimmels next monologue about Trump
https://politicalwire.com/2024/10/12/why-the-polls-might-be-underestimating-harris/
This is a little complicated, so click the link, but here's part of it:
"If someone mistakenly says they voted for Biden in 2020 but had actually voted for Trump, and then says they plan to vote for Trump in 2024, it will look like there’s been a shift toward Trump when there actually hasn’t been.”
How many people actually forget who they voted for in past Presidential elections? I have a hard time believing they make up a significant percentage of the electorate.
Political scientists say a lot of people misremember. In particular they say they voted for the winner when that actually voted for the loser.
They always convince themselves they actually voted for the winner; it's a weird coping mechanism(this was literally taught to me in politics sci 101); it's very strange because the ballot now is a secret ballot and the election is over
After Watergate, the majority of Americans claimed to have voted for McGovern. If they "misremember", it's because they want to forget something.