Interestingly she never mentions Trump in that ad . It’s a very positive ad overall which will be a world away from the likely hateful divisive Trump one .
There is method in Trump's madness, in addition to the madness (and badness).
Purpose is to DEPRESS voter turnout, in particular by women (but NOT just) which is one of the well-known affects of negative campaigning. Of course DJT is also trying to BOOST turnout among infrequently-voting wackjobs of his ilk - but that a separate strategy, and Trump/Vance rhetoric is designed to appeal to them.
In contrast, Harris needs HIGHER turnout in general, and her positivity is also strategic.
If Trump loses, who will go next? Will Trump have another go?
DeSantis and Haley would be frontrunners if he loses, Vance if he wins as incumbent VP
Haley is the Tugendhat of the Republicans.
Indeed, DeSantis the Badenoch and Vance the Jenrick and Trump a hybrid of Boris and Farage and Harris a hybrid of Diane Abbott and Rayner and Starmer a less senile Biden
Democrat Kamala Harris leads Donald Trump in Iowa 47% to 44%, a new Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll shows.
I don't believe Harris will win Iowa - although the Des Moines Register has a pretty good polling record. But I do believe the poll is evidence that Harris is outperforming with white voters in the Midwest, and inversely, is doing worse with black and Hispanic voters.
Without going into the gory (or not), in the Midwest as a region AND state-by-state, would rather be outperforming with White voters and underperforming with Blacks & Latinos, than the other way around.
NEW: Keir Starmer will declare the small boats crisis a 'national security' threat next week and will launch a new Organised Immigration Crime Intelligence Unit
Democrat Kamala Harris leads Donald Trump in Iowa 47% to 44%, a new Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll shows.
I don't believe Harris will win Iowa - although the Des Moines Register has a pretty good polling record. But I do believe the poll is evidence that Harris is outperforming with white voters in the Midwest, and inversely, is doing worse with black and Hispanic voters.
The Sun Belt is going to be bloodbath for Kam - Trump will sweep the lot for 269, so even with Penn and Mich and whisky, Kam is short.
The moment Trump snicks a Rusty, game over.
You can’t count.
Okay. This is my second attempt at counting. Sunbelt give Trump 268. Penn and Mich and whisky Gives Kam 281. Is that better?
Trump has moved from 1.55 to 1.76 since that came out.
We can’t ignore Emerson which showed Trump 9 ahead and that fieldwork is newer . Post the poor jobs report but even if Selzer is way out and Trump takes it by 3 that would still show Harris doing better with white voters than Biden.
The Selzer poll is well respected and will give a boost to the Harris campaign . It will cause an absolute meltdown in the Trump campaign so let’s just enjoy that !
Democrat Kamala Harris leads Donald Trump in Iowa 47% to 44%, a new Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll shows.
I don't believe Harris will win Iowa - although the Des Moines Register has a pretty good polling record. But I do believe the poll is evidence that Harris is outperforming with white voters in the Midwest, and inversely, is doing worse with black and Hispanic voters.
The Sun Belt is going to be bloodbath for Kam - Trump will sweep the lot for 269, so even with Penn and Mich and whisky, Kam is short.
The moment Trump snicks a Rusty, game over.
You can’t count.
Okay. This is my second attempt at counting. Sunbelt give Trump 268. Penn and Mich and whisky Gives Kam 281. Is that better?
Democrat Kamala Harris leads Donald Trump in Iowa 47% to 44%, a new Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll shows.
I don't believe Harris will win Iowa - although the Des Moines Register has a pretty good polling record. But I do believe the poll is evidence that Harris is outperforming with white voters in the Midwest, and inversely, is doing worse with black and Hispanic voters.
The Sun Belt is going to be bloodbath for Kam - Trump will sweep the lot for 269, so even with Penn and Mich and whisky, Kam is short.
The moment Trump snicks a Rusty, game over.
You can’t count.
Okay. This is my second attempt at counting. Sunbelt give Trump 268. Penn and Mich and whisky Gives Kam 281. Is that better?
Trump has moved from 1.55 to 1.76 since that came out.
We can’t ignore Emerson which showed Trump 9 ahead and that fieldwork is newer . Post the poor jobs report but even if Selzer is way out and Trump takes it by 3 that would still show Harris doing better with white voters than Biden.
The Selzer poll is well respected and will give a boost to the Harris campaign . It will cause an absolute meltdown in the Trump campaign so let’s just enjoy that !
Last thing I'll say about the Selzer poll is this
I remember seeing Biden polling so far ahead in polls in 2020 that 413 EVs was a possibility if you believed the polls
Then Selzer dropped a Trump +7 poll
And I thought, "Either she's finally missed the mark hard, or everyone else is wrong"
Though, of course, it’s entirely possible that this is the election where Seltzer is finally wrong. But I know where I’m putting a bit more cash tonight.
2024 Total Registered Voters: 2,338,582 Democrats: 737,184 (31.51%) Republicans: 678,328 (29.00%) Third Party/Other: 59,712 (2.55%) Unaffiliated: 863,358 (36.94%)
Note that since 2020, over 500,000 people have registered but the number of unaffiliated has increased dramatically.
That's due to automatic voter registration with driving licence renewal isn't it?
Yes. I don't know what significance to put on it.
They also had "motor-voter" registration via driving license renewals AND new drivers (teenagers plus incomers) back in 2020.
Nevada voter reg affiliation change(s) since then due to several factor, including influx of Californicators and (perhaps) changes in party rules re: primary voting.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 51m Wow. Ann Selzer's Iowa polls have a great track record.
If Harris is even close in Iowa - let alone winning - then she should be winning Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennslyvania by more than the poll averages there are saying.
"Older and politically independent women" driving the late shift to Harris
Key finding of shock Iowa Poll re: Harris leading Trump in the great Hawkeye State is that, "The poll shows that women — particularly those who are older or are politically independent — are driving the late shift toward Harris."
OK, Nevada. Let's predict the votes based on the change in a thing since 2020.
2020 Results * 2020 results were DEM 50.06%, REP 47.67%, which are rebased to DEM 51.22% REP 48.78% to total to 100% * DEMVOTE2024 = DEMVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then) * REPVOTE2024 = REPVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then)
Uniform State Swing: (based on state poll then vs state poll now) * DEM 48.22%, REP 51.95%, REP WINS
Registration: (based on registration numbers then vs registration numbers now) * DEM 48.98%, REP 51.02%, REP WINS
Guys, I'm sorry, but I don't see her winning this. Uniform swing, early votes and registration changes all indicate that Trump will win Nevada. Happy to hear counterargument but if it's "there will be a late swing" I will say bad words.
Key finding of shock Iowa Poll re: Harris leading Trump in the great Hawkeye State is that, "The poll shows that women — particularly those who are older or are politically independent — are driving the late shift toward Harris."
Anecdotally this is what the Harris campaign has been saying (FWIW) - that undecideds/independents are, as far as they can tell, breaking significantly to them.
Interesting to note that Harris can win the election 270-268 without Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada if she wins North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona and all the ECVs in Maine, as well as one in Nebraska. This is no change in ECVs compared to 2020 despite the reallocations since then.
OK, Nevada. Let's predict the votes based on the change in a thing since 2020.
2020 Results * 2020 results were DEM 50.06%, REP 47.67%, which are rebased to DEM 51.22% REP 48.78% to total to 100% * DEMVOTE2024 = DEMVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then) * REPVOTE2024 = REPVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then)
Uniform State Swing: (based on state poll then vs state poll now) * DEM 48.22%, REP 51.95%, REP WINS
Registration: (based on registration numbers then vs registration numbers now) * DEM 48.98%, REP 51.02%, REP WINS
Guys, I'm sorry, but I don't see her winning this. Uniform swing, early votes and registration changes all indicate that Trump will win Nevada. Happy to hear counterargument but if it's "there will be a late swing" I will say bad words.
How are you accounting for those registered independent ?
NOT on the Saturday NYT front page, at least the copy I just purchased from my local mini-mart.
On the PRINT edition, that is.
The NYT is on sale at the train station in my local big town, but it's probably the international edition. I don't know how much difference there is between those print editions.
NEW: Keir Starmer will declare the small boats crisis a 'national security' threat next week and will launch a new Organised Immigration Crime Intelligence Unit
OK, Nevada. Let's predict the votes based on the change in a thing since 2020.
2020 Results * 2020 results were DEM 50.06%, REP 47.67%, which are rebased to DEM 51.22% REP 48.78% to total to 100%
Uniform State Swing: (based on state poll then vs state poll now) * DEM 48.22%, REP 51.95%, REP WINS
Registration: (based on registration numbers then vs registration numbers now) * DEM 48.98%, REP 51.02%, REP WINS
Guys, I'm sorry, but I don't see her winning this. Uniform swing, early votes and registration changes all indicate that Trump will win Nevada. Happy to hear counterargument but if it's "there will be a late swing" I will say bad words.
As I understand it, no one knows who the early votes have been for, where we are expecting a lot Republicans to vote Harris so registration and lifetime allegiance can be misleading. Especially as many will do so quietly and lie when asked how.
Women voters might be shy voters. Many may be the shy GOP to Dem switchers.
With stunts with garbage trucks and wall to wall coverage of garbagegate and trash talk on Fox and other news, it’s helping Latino to be aware and reminded its Trumps campaign who kicked the anger off, and exactly how they did, like continued digging when you could be better off moving on. It’s certainly switched many Latino.
OK, Nevada. Let's predict the votes based on the change in a thing since 2020.
2020 Results * 2020 results were DEM 50.06%, REP 47.67%, which are rebased to DEM 51.22% REP 48.78% to total to 100% * DEMVOTE2024 = DEMVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then) * REPVOTE2024 = REPVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then)
Uniform State Swing: (based on state poll then vs state poll now) * DEM 48.22%, REP 51.95%, REP WINS
Registration: (based on registration numbers then vs registration numbers now) * DEM 48.98%, REP 51.02%, REP WINS
Guys, I'm sorry, but I don't see her winning this. Uniform swing, early votes and registration changes all indicate that Trump will win Nevada. Happy to hear counterargument but if it's "there will be a late swing" I will say bad words.
How are you accounting for those registered independent ?
I'm not.
I need a brutal sieve. I don't have the time nor the tech to do anything but something brutal. I don't need to know the exact numbers, just which of DEM and REP are bigger. So it becomes as simple as:
I haven’t heard ‘BEWARE RED FOG’ mentioned this time. Off top head, Biden won rust belt states despite Trump holding six digit leads on the first night. Will we get the same RED FOG this time?
NEW: Keir Starmer will declare the small boats crisis a 'national security' threat next week and will launch a new Organised Immigration Crime Intelligence Unit
OK, Nevada. Let's predict the votes based on the change in a thing since 2020.
2020 Results * 2020 results were DEM 50.06%, REP 47.67%, which are rebased to DEM 51.22% REP 48.78% to total to 100% * DEMVOTE2024 = DEMVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then) * REPVOTE2024 = REPVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then)
Uniform State Swing: (based on state poll then vs state poll now) * DEM 48.22%, REP 51.95%, REP WINS
Registration: (based on registration numbers then vs registration numbers now) * DEM 48.98%, REP 51.02%, REP WINS
Guys, I'm sorry, but I don't see her winning this. Uniform swing, early votes and registration changes all indicate that Trump will win Nevada. Happy to hear counterargument but if it's "there will be a late swing" I will say bad words.
What would you say, if I say that Nonpartisan voters will decide the result in Nevada?
Seeing as how they are in 2024 (as opposed to 2020) the largest group of registered voters in the state. AND not affiiated - at least formally - with ANY political party.
OK, Nevada. Let's predict the votes based on the change in a thing since 2020.
2020 Results * 2020 results were DEM 50.06%, REP 47.67%, which are rebased to DEM 51.22% REP 48.78% to total to 100%
Uniform State Swing: (based on state poll then vs state poll now) * DEM 48.22%, REP 51.95%, REP WINS
Registration: (based on registration numbers then vs registration numbers now) * DEM 48.98%, REP 51.02%, REP WINS
Guys, I'm sorry, but I don't see her winning this. Uniform swing, early votes and registration changes all indicate that Trump will win Nevada. Happy to hear counterargument but if it's "there will be a late swing" I will say bad words.
As I understand it, no one knows who the early votes have been for, where we are expecting a lot Republicans to vote Harris so registration and lifetime allegiance can be misleading. Especially as many will do so quietly and lie when asked how.
Women voters might be shy voters. Many may be the shy GOP to Dem switchers.
With stunts with garbage trucks and wall to wall coverage of garbagegate and trash talk on Fox and other news, it’s helping Latino to be aware and reminded its Trumps campaign who kicked the anger off, and exactly how they did, like continued digging when you could be better off moving on. It’s certainly switched many Latino.
Trump supporters are certainly not garbage imo.
They’re minions.
Mights, coulds, allegiences, switches...can't handle it. It's 48hrs to Tuesday and decisions must be taken. All the Kamala news in Nevada is bad.
OK, Nevada. Let's predict the votes based on the change in a thing since 2020.
2020 Results * 2020 results were DEM 50.06%, REP 47.67%, which are rebased to DEM 51.22% REP 48.78% to total to 100% * DEMVOTE2024 = DEMVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then) * REPVOTE2024 = REPVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then)
Uniform State Swing: (based on state poll then vs state poll now) * DEM 48.22%, REP 51.95%, REP WINS
Registration: (based on registration numbers then vs registration numbers now) * DEM 48.98%, REP 51.02%, REP WINS
Guys, I'm sorry, but I don't see her winning this. Uniform swing, early votes and registration changes all indicate that Trump will win Nevada. Happy to hear counterargument but if it's "there will be a late swing" I will say bad words.
How are you accounting for those registered independent ?
I'm not.
I need a brutal sieve. I don't have the time nor the tech to do anything but something brutal. I don't need to know the exact numbers, just which of DEM and REP are bigger. So it becomes as simple as:
I can do it for you. I’m good at counting and all over this EC malarkey.
Firstly, Independent’s who put Trump in in 2016, now understand him and his platform an awful lot better. They could easily think, I want better options next time, certainly better GOP option, so if my vote finish Trump here, and gives Rep a reset, it’s in my interest to do that.
OK, Nevada. Let's predict the votes based on the change in a thing since 2020.
2020 Results * 2020 results were DEM 50.06%, REP 47.67%, which are rebased to DEM 51.22% REP 48.78% to total to 100% * DEMVOTE2024 = DEMVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then) * REPVOTE2024 = REPVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then)
Uniform State Swing: (based on state poll then vs state poll now) * DEM 48.22%, REP 51.95%, REP WINS
Registration: (based on registration numbers then vs registration numbers now) * DEM 48.98%, REP 51.02%, REP WINS
Guys, I'm sorry, but I don't see her winning this. Uniform swing, early votes and registration changes all indicate that Trump will win Nevada. Happy to hear counterargument but if it's "there will be a late swing" I will say bad words.
How are you accounting for those registered independent ?
I'm not.
I need a brutal sieve. I don't have the time nor the tech to do anything but something brutal. I don't need to know the exact numbers, just which of DEM and REP are bigger. So it becomes as simple as:
Too brutal. There are more voters registered independent that either Rep or Dem, in Nevada. You can’t really ignore how they might break - and that’s at least fairly likely to decade the outcome.
Democrat Kamala Harris leads Donald Trump in Iowa 47% to 44%, a new Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll shows.
I don't believe Harris will win Iowa - although the Des Moines Register has a pretty good polling record. But I do believe the poll is evidence that Harris is outperforming with white voters in the Midwest, and inversely, is doing worse with black and Hispanic voters.
The Sun Belt is going to be bloodbath for Kam - Trump will sweep the lot for 269, so even with Penn and Mich and whisky, Kam is short.
The moment Trump snicks a Rusty, game over.
You can’t count.
Okay. This is my second attempt at counting. Sunbelt give Trump 268. Penn and Mich and whisky Gives Kam 281. Is that better?
OK, Nevada. Let's predict the votes based on the change in a thing since 2020.
2020 Results * 2020 results were DEM 50.06%, REP 47.67%, which are rebased to DEM 51.22% REP 48.78% to total to 100%
Uniform State Swing: (based on state poll then vs state poll now) * DEM 48.22%, REP 51.95%, REP WINS
Registration: (based on registration numbers then vs registration numbers now) * DEM 48.98%, REP 51.02%, REP WINS
Guys, I'm sorry, but I don't see her winning this. Uniform swing, early votes and registration changes all indicate that Trump will win Nevada. Happy to hear counterargument but if it's "there will be a late swing" I will say bad words.
As I understand it, no one knows who the early votes have been for, where we are expecting a lot Republicans to vote Harris so registration and lifetime allegiance can be misleading. Especially as many will do so quietly and lie when asked how.
Women voters might be shy voters. Many may be the shy GOP to Dem switchers.
With stunts with garbage trucks and wall to wall coverage of garbagegate and trash talk on Fox and other news, it’s helping Latino to be aware and reminded its Trumps campaign who kicked the anger off, and exactly how they did, like continued digging when you could be better off moving on. It’s certainly switched many Latino.
Trump supporters are certainly not garbage imo.
They’re minions.
Mights, coulds, allegiences, switches...can't handle it. It's 48hrs to Tuesday and decisions must be taken. All the Kamala news in Nevada is bad.
I just explained to you, it isn’t all bad. The loud second guessing by mouthy journalists might be bad. State Polls in last couple of days have given Kam Nevada leads, how does that tally with early voting having lost it already.
Re Seltzer, either she or Emerson are going to look like fools in 72 hours time.
One thing I have heard mentioned - but can't see the cross tabs so cannot verify - is that only 7% of respondents in the Iowa poll mentioned the Economy as their number 1 priority. Which seems odd.
OK, Nevada. Let's predict the votes based on the change in a thing since 2020.
2020 Results * 2020 results were DEM 50.06%, REP 47.67%, which are rebased to DEM 51.22% REP 48.78% to total to 100% * DEMVOTE2024 = DEMVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then) * REPVOTE2024 = REPVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then)
Uniform State Swing: (based on state poll then vs state poll now) * DEM 48.22%, REP 51.95%, REP WINS
Registration: (based on registration numbers then vs registration numbers now) * DEM 48.98%, REP 51.02%, REP WINS
Guys, I'm sorry, but I don't see her winning this. Uniform swing, early votes and registration changes all indicate that Trump will win Nevada. Happy to hear counterargument but if it's "there will be a late swing" I will say bad words.
What would you say, if I say that Nonpartisan voters will decide the result in Nevada?
Seeing as how they are in 2024 (as opposed to 2020) the largest group of registered voters in the state. AND not affiiated - at least formally - with ANY political party.
You might be right. Genuinely. But unless you can put a real number on it - how many undecideds go Dem, how many Rep - how do I handle it?
OK, Nevada. Let's predict the votes based on the change in a thing since 2020.
2020 Results * 2020 results were DEM 50.06%, REP 47.67%, which are rebased to DEM 51.22% REP 48.78% to total to 100% * DEMVOTE2024 = DEMVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then) * REPVOTE2024 = REPVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then)
Uniform State Swing: (based on state poll then vs state poll now) * DEM 48.22%, REP 51.95%, REP WINS
Registration: (based on registration numbers then vs registration numbers now) * DEM 48.98%, REP 51.02%, REP WINS
Guys, I'm sorry, but I don't see her winning this. Uniform swing, early votes and registration changes all indicate that Trump will win Nevada. Happy to hear counterargument but if it's "there will be a late swing" I will say bad words.
How are you accounting for those registered independent ?
I'm not.
I need a brutal sieve. I don't have the time nor the tech to do anything but something brutal. I don't need to know the exact numbers, just which of DEM and REP are bigger. So it becomes as simple as:
I can do it for you. I’m good at counting and all over this EC malarkey.
Firstly, Independent’s who put Trump in in 2016, now understand him and his platform an awful lot better. They could easily think, I want better options next time, certainly better GOP option, so if my vote finish Trump here, and gives Rep a reset, it’s in my interest to do that.
Fair enough. So, in your judgement who is going to win Nevada: Dem or Rep?
I wonder if anyone has ever stated, (and they surely must have done), the following: to be good at making predictions, you need to be sufficiently interested in a topic to be objective, but not so invested in it that you can, if only sometimes, become subjective, thus making your predictions not so reliable as they might have been.
OK, Nevada. Let's predict the votes based on the change in a thing since 2020.
2020 Results * 2020 results were DEM 50.06%, REP 47.67%, which are rebased to DEM 51.22% REP 48.78% to total to 100% * DEMVOTE2024 = DEMVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then) * REPVOTE2024 = REPVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then)
Uniform State Swing: (based on state poll then vs state poll now) * DEM 48.22%, REP 51.95%, REP WINS
Registration: (based on registration numbers then vs registration numbers now) * DEM 48.98%, REP 51.02%, REP WINS
Guys, I'm sorry, but I don't see her winning this. Uniform swing, early votes and registration changes all indicate that Trump will win Nevada. Happy to hear counterargument but if it's "there will be a late swing" I will say bad words.
How are you accounting for those registered independent ?
I'm not.
I need a brutal sieve. I don't have the time nor the tech to do anything but something brutal. I don't need to know the exact numbers, just which of DEM and REP are bigger. So it becomes as simple as:
Too brutal. There are more voters registered independent that either Rep or Dem, in Nevada. You can’t really ignore how they might break - and that’s at least fairly likely to decade the outcome.
Fair enough. So, in your judgement who is going to win Nevada: Dem or Rep?
Democrat Kamala Harris leads Donald Trump in Iowa 47% to 44%, a new Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll shows.
I don't believe Harris will win Iowa - although the Des Moines Register has a pretty good polling record. But I do believe the poll is evidence that Harris is outperforming with white voters in the Midwest, and inversely, is doing worse with black and Hispanic voters.
The Sun Belt is going to be bloodbath for Kam - Trump will sweep the lot for 269, so even with Penn and Mich and whisky, Kam is short.
The moment Trump snicks a Rusty, game over.
You can’t count.
Okay. This is my second attempt at counting. Sunbelt give Trump 268. Penn and Mich and whisky Gives Kam 281. Is that better?
OK, Nevada. Let's predict the votes based on the change in a thing since 2020.
2020 Results * 2020 results were DEM 50.06%, REP 47.67%, which are rebased to DEM 51.22% REP 48.78% to total to 100%
Uniform State Swing: (based on state poll then vs state poll now) * DEM 48.22%, REP 51.95%, REP WINS
Registration: (based on registration numbers then vs registration numbers now) * DEM 48.98%, REP 51.02%, REP WINS
Guys, I'm sorry, but I don't see her winning this. Uniform swing, early votes and registration changes all indicate that Trump will win Nevada. Happy to hear counterargument but if it's "there will be a late swing" I will say bad words.
As I understand it, no one knows who the early votes have been for, where we are expecting a lot Republicans to vote Harris so registration and lifetime allegiance can be misleading. Especially as many will do so quietly and lie when asked how.
Women voters might be shy voters. Many may be the shy GOP to Dem switchers.
With stunts with garbage trucks and wall to wall coverage of garbagegate and trash talk on Fox and other news, it’s helping Latino to be aware and reminded its Trumps campaign who kicked the anger off, and exactly how they did, like continued digging when you could be better off moving on. It’s certainly switched many Latino.
Trump supporters are certainly not garbage imo.
They’re minions.
Mights, coulds, allegiences, switches...can't handle it. It's 48hrs to Tuesday and decisions must be taken. All the Kamala news in Nevada is bad.
I just explained to you, it isn’t all bad. The loud second guessing by mouthy journalists might be bad. State Polls in last couple of days have given Kam Nevada leads, how does that tally with early voting having lost it already.
Re Seltzer, either she or Emerson are going to look like fools in 72 hours time.
One thing I have heard mentioned - but can't see the cross tabs so cannot verify - is that only 7% of respondents in the Iowa poll mentioned the Economy as their number 1 priority. Which seems odd.
Both Emerson and Selzer are excellent pollsters, rated 10th and 12th respectively by 538.
OK, Nevada. Let's predict the votes based on the change in a thing since 2020.
2020 Results * 2020 results were DEM 50.06%, REP 47.67%, which are rebased to DEM 51.22% REP 48.78% to total to 100% * DEMVOTE2024 = DEMVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then) * REPVOTE2024 = REPVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then)
Uniform State Swing: (based on state poll then vs state poll now) * DEM 48.22%, REP 51.95%, REP WINS
Registration: (based on registration numbers then vs registration numbers now) * DEM 48.98%, REP 51.02%, REP WINS
Guys, I'm sorry, but I don't see her winning this. Uniform swing, early votes and registration changes all indicate that Trump will win Nevada. Happy to hear counterargument but if it's "there will be a late swing" I will say bad words.
What would you say, if I say that Nonpartisan voters will decide the result in Nevada?
Seeing as how they are in 2024 (as opposed to 2020) the largest group of registered voters in the state. AND not affiiated - at least formally - with ANY political party.
You might be right. Genuinely. But unless you can put a real number on it - how many undecideds go Dem, how many Rep - how do I handle it?
You don't. Maybe you could extrapolate from polling of "independents" but that'd be problematic at best.
Like I said upthread, extrapolating from last election in Nevada, is at best a crapshoot.
Though of course you might be rolling 7s instead of snake-eyes.
OK, Nevada. Let's predict the votes based on the change in a thing since 2020.
2020 Results * 2020 results were DEM 50.06%, REP 47.67%, which are rebased to DEM 51.22% REP 48.78% to total to 100% * DEMVOTE2024 = DEMVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then) * REPVOTE2024 = REPVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then)
Uniform State Swing: (based on state poll then vs state poll now) * DEM 48.22%, REP 51.95%, REP WINS
Registration: (based on registration numbers then vs registration numbers now) * DEM 48.98%, REP 51.02%, REP WINS
Guys, I'm sorry, but I don't see her winning this. Uniform swing, early votes and registration changes all indicate that Trump will win Nevada. Happy to hear counterargument but if it's "there will be a late swing" I will say bad words.
How are you accounting for those registered independent ?
I'm not.
I need a brutal sieve. I don't have the time nor the tech to do anything but something brutal. I don't need to know the exact numbers, just which of DEM and REP are bigger. So it becomes as simple as:
Too brutal. There are more voters registered independent that either Rep or Dem, in Nevada. You can’t really ignore how they might break - and that’s at least fairly likely to decade the outcome.
Fair enough. So, in your judgement who is going to win Nevada: Dem or Rep?
OK, Nevada. Let's predict the votes based on the change in a thing since 2020.
2020 Results * 2020 results were DEM 50.06%, REP 47.67%, which are rebased to DEM 51.22% REP 48.78% to total to 100% * DEMVOTE2024 = DEMVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then) * REPVOTE2024 = REPVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then)
Uniform State Swing: (based on state poll then vs state poll now) * DEM 48.22%, REP 51.95%, REP WINS
Registration: (based on registration numbers then vs registration numbers now) * DEM 48.98%, REP 51.02%, REP WINS
Guys, I'm sorry, but I don't see her winning this. Uniform swing, early votes and registration changes all indicate that Trump will win Nevada. Happy to hear counterargument but if it's "there will be a late swing" I will say bad words.
How are you accounting for those registered independent ?
I'm not.
I need a brutal sieve. I don't have the time nor the tech to do anything but something brutal. I don't need to know the exact numbers, just which of DEM and REP are bigger. So it becomes as simple as:
I can do it for you. I’m good at counting and all over this EC malarkey.
Firstly, Independent’s who put Trump in in 2016, now understand him and his platform an awful lot better. They could easily think, I want better options next time, certainly better GOP option, so if my vote finish Trump here, and gives Rep a reset, it’s in my interest to do that.
Fair enough. So, in your judgement who is going to win Nevada: Dem or Rep?
I really don’t know 🤷♀️
It would be nice if Kam can win in Sunbelt somewhere, so it’s a bit less tight than all on tight rusty races.
The closing stages of the campaign Kam has both won the campaigning, and got some polling swingback, so I feel a lot better about the Rust Belt states going into next week.
I wonder if anyone has ever stated, (and they surely must have done), the following: to be good at making predictions, you need to be sufficiently interested in a topic to be objective, but not so invested in it that you can, if only sometimes, become subjective, thus making your predictions not so reliable as they might have been.
This is a plot point in the Foundation novel series! (Genuinely)
OK, Nevada. Let's predict the votes based on the change in a thing since 2020.
2020 Results * 2020 results were DEM 50.06%, REP 47.67%, which are rebased to DEM 51.22% REP 48.78% to total to 100% * DEMVOTE2024 = DEMVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then) * REPVOTE2024 = REPVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then)
Uniform State Swing: (based on state poll then vs state poll now) * DEM 48.22%, REP 51.95%, REP WINS
Registration: (based on registration numbers then vs registration numbers now) * DEM 48.98%, REP 51.02%, REP WINS
Guys, I'm sorry, but I don't see her winning this. Uniform swing, early votes and registration changes all indicate that Trump will win Nevada. Happy to hear counterargument but if it's "there will be a late swing" I will say bad words.
How are you accounting for those registered independent ?
I'm not.
I need a brutal sieve. I don't have the time nor the tech to do anything but something brutal. I don't need to know the exact numbers, just which of DEM and REP are bigger. So it becomes as simple as:
Too brutal. There are more voters registered independent that either Rep or Dem, in Nevada. You can’t really ignore how they might break - and that’s at least fairly likely to decade the outcome.
Fair enough. So, in your judgement who is going to win Nevada: Dem or Rep?
No strong conviction - it’s a coin flip, IMO. I’m pretty confident the independents will break for Harris, thoigh.
OK, Nevada. Let's predict the votes based on the change in a thing since 2020.
2020 Results * 2020 results were DEM 50.06%, REP 47.67%, which are rebased to DEM 51.22% REP 48.78% to total to 100%
Uniform State Swing: (based on state poll then vs state poll now) * DEM 48.22%, REP 51.95%, REP WINS
Registration: (based on registration numbers then vs registration numbers now) * DEM 48.98%, REP 51.02%, REP WINS
Guys, I'm sorry, but I don't see her winning this. Uniform swing, early votes and registration changes all indicate that Trump will win Nevada. Happy to hear counterargument but if it's "there will be a late swing" I will say bad words.
As I understand it, no one knows who the early votes have been for, where we are expecting a lot Republicans to vote Harris so registration and lifetime allegiance can be misleading. Especially as many will do so quietly and lie when asked how.
Women voters might be shy voters. Many may be the shy GOP to Dem switchers.
With stunts with garbage trucks and wall to wall coverage of garbagegate and trash talk on Fox and other news, it’s helping Latino to be aware and reminded its Trumps campaign who kicked the anger off, and exactly how they did, like continued digging when you could be better off moving on. It’s certainly switched many Latino.
Trump supporters are certainly not garbage imo.
They’re minions.
Mights, coulds, allegiences, switches...can't handle it. It's 48hrs to Tuesday and decisions must be taken. All the Kamala news in Nevada is bad.
I just explained to you, it isn’t all bad. The loud second guessing by mouthy journalists might be bad. State Polls in last couple of days have given Kam Nevada leads, how does that tally with early voting having lost it already.
Explain it in terms of the Dutch salute.
Well, if we really must put in such terms, the voters are effectively “snorkelling”. They are placing apparatus over the eyes, so you can’t clearly see what’s going on, and only know when you can actually “taste” the votes.
GOP to Dem switchers will be going about the business unseen. Trump/Kam canvesser knocks on the door “have you voted,can you tell me who for?” “Yes. We have both voted already, for Trump.”
They’ve had 3 battleground polls in 6 days ! We’re supposed to believe they’ve managed 21 polls of separate states in that time . They fluked the last election and are now the Trafalgar of Brazil .
That's a good interview. You definitely need to take her polling very seriously.
Selzer describes her methodology as hinging on not making assumptions about the electorate from one race to the next, so it's plausible she's picking up a shift that is being missed by the rest.
That's a good interview. You definitely need to take her polling very seriously.
Selzer describes her methodology as hinging on not making assumptions about the electorate from one race to the next, so it's plausible she's picking up a shift that is being missed by the rest.
Her record in Iowa is astonishingly good. Pretty much only one national or state level miss. The rest are within 1-3%. Sometimes on the nose.
Anything less than a Trump win by 7% is disastrous for his Presidential chances.
For the broader picture, bear in mind that Iowa has some of the toughest abortion laws in the US - it bans almost all abortions after 6 weeks.
That's a good interview. You definitely need to take her polling very seriously.
Selzer describes her methodology as hinging on not making assumptions about the electorate from one race to the next, so it's plausible she's picking up a shift that is being missed by the rest.
I guess the argument she might be wrong is that she has really old-school methods that work until they're overtaken by the modern world, and this is the cycle when modernity finally catches up with Iowa.
OK, Nevada. Let's predict the votes based on the change in a thing since 2020.
2020 Results * 2020 results were DEM 50.06%, REP 47.67%, which are rebased to DEM 51.22% REP 48.78% to total to 100% * DEMVOTE2024 = DEMVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then) * REPVOTE2024 = REPVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then)
Uniform State Swing: (based on state poll then vs state poll now) * DEM 48.22%, REP 51.95%, REP WINS
Registration: (based on registration numbers then vs registration numbers now) * DEM 48.98%, REP 51.02%, REP WINS
Guys, I'm sorry, but I don't see her winning this. Uniform swing, early votes and registration changes all indicate that Trump will win Nevada. Happy to hear counterargument but if it's "there will be a late swing" I will say bad words.
How are you accounting for those registered independent ?
I'm not.
I need a brutal sieve. I don't have the time nor the tech to do anything but something brutal. I don't need to know the exact numbers, just which of DEM and REP are bigger. So it becomes as simple as:
Too brutal. There are more voters registered independent that either Rep or Dem, in Nevada. You can’t really ignore how they might break - and that’s at least fairly likely to decade the outcome.
Fair enough. So, in your judgement who is going to win Nevada: Dem or Rep?
No strong conviction - it’s a coin flip, IMO. I’m pretty confident the independents will break for Harris, thoigh.
I'm on the ground in Nevada. I've been reading Ralston's blog all week (as has anyone who is considering betting).
The numbers are not good for the Democrats. However, and it's a big however, there are two changes that have happened since 2020.
First, voter registration is now automatic with Drivers License renewal. No-one knows what this means in terms of the predictive nature of early votes in prior elections.
Secondly, there has continued to be a large influx from California. Reno and Vegas property prices are still much cheaper than the Bay Area or LA. Remote work has been a thing that has enabled younger college-educated tech workers to move to Nevada. No one knows what this means.
To favour Trump, the Republicans did win the state governor race in 2022. But they didn't make any headway in the state house and lost the other statewide offices, the senate race and the house districts.
To favour Harris, there is an abortion referendum on the ballot (question 6). Democrats are running hard on this. I could see this juicing the women vote, even those that are registered Republican.
In short, as Ralston says, nobody knows and anybody who thinks they know doesn't. I certainly don't. I could easily see a women-led Harris win by 5. Or a Latino swing to a Trump win by 5.
So I'll finish with the only thing I can personally add, which is in my neighbourhood I see no Trump signs this year. In 2020 they were in about 5 gardens in my street. There are no Harris signs, but there were no Biden signs either.
Along the roads I see more Trump signs than Harris signs, but again less than in 2020. There are still people driving around with Trump flags, but less than in 2020.
Finally, the Trump signs show all the signs of leaning heavily into crazy. One official one says "Trump was right about EVERYTHING". As a friend remarked to me, "Inject bleach if you agree". Another says "TRUMP VANCE MUSK KENNEDY" which is not the positive message they think it is. I'd say these signs, if anything, are more motivating for people to vote Harris because like everything Trump, they go too far.
That's a good interview. You definitely need to take her polling very seriously.
Selzer describes her methodology as hinging on not making assumptions about the electorate from one race to the next, so it's plausible she's picking up a shift that is being missed by the rest.
Indeed. That's why I said I think she's more likely to be the one who's right in an election like this one. We know that most uf the rest are weighting by previous vote (and also by likelihood to vote) - which by definition will undersample a whole swath of voters.
If those voters skew in a particular direction, and if they turn out in greater numbers than predicted, we could have the diametric opposite of the polling error from 2020 (which Selzer also got right).
Or she could have got it wrong for just about the first time.
Re Seltzer, either she or Emerson are going to look like fools in 72 hours time.
One thing I have heard mentioned - but can't see the cross tabs so cannot verify - is that only 7% of respondents in the Iowa poll mentioned the Economy as their number 1 priority. Which seems odd.
There's a really interesting map on Nate Silver, which shows inflation over the last four years by State. The Midwest has suffered almost none, while the Southwest has had a very serious problem.
That could be why Iowa (and Wisconsin and Michigan) are outperforming for Harris, while Nevada and Arizona are much worse
That's a good interview. You definitely need to take her polling very seriously.
Selzer describes her methodology as hinging on not making assumptions about the electorate from one race to the next, so it's plausible she's picking up a shift that is being missed by the rest.
Indeed. That's why I said I think she's more likely to be the one who's right in an election like this one. We know that most uf the rest are weighting by previous vote (and also by likelihood to vote) - which by definition will undersample a whole swath of voters.
If those voters skew in a particular direction, and if they turn out in greater numbers than predicted, we could have the diametric opposite of the polling error from 2020 (which Selzer also got right).
Or she could have got it wrong for just about the first time.
For what it's worth, I think it is highly likely that - like in 2020 and 2016 - one of the two candidates will sweep the swing states.
I would also think that the Iowa poll might also have an impact about how we think about two Senate races.
My general view was that Sherrod Brown was going to struggle in a year when Trump would win Ohio by 10 points. Sure Brown will outperform Harris, but in that scenario he'd still lose by 4 to 5 points.
If Iowa is anything like the Selzer poll (i.e. close), then Ohio will probably only be 4 or 5 point win for Trump, and probably means that Brown should be favorite.
Likewise (despite my earlier scepticism), it suggests that the independent in Nebraska might be worth a small punt.
That's a good interview. You definitely need to take her polling very seriously.
Selzer describes her methodology as hinging on not making assumptions about the electorate from one race to the next, so it's plausible she's picking up a shift that is being missed by the rest.
Indeed. That's why I said I think she's more likely to be the one who's right in an election like this one. We know that most uf the rest are weighting by previous vote (and also by likelihood to vote) - which by definition will undersample a whole swath of voters.
If those voters skew in a particular direction, and if they turn out in greater numbers than predicted, we could have the diametric opposite of the polling error from 2020 (which Selzer also got right).
Or she could have got it wrong for just about the first time.
For what it's worth, I think it is highly likely that - like in 2020 and 2016 - one of the two candidates will sweep the swing states.
I would also think that the Iowa poll might also have an impact about how we think about two Senate races.
My general view was that Sherrod Brown was going to struggle in a year when Trump would win Ohio by 10 points. Sure Brown will outperform Harris, but in that scenario he'd still lose by 4 to 5 points.
If Iowa is anything like the Selzer poll (i.e. close), then Ohio will probably only be 4 or 5 point win for Trump, and probably means that Brown should be favorite.
Likewise (despite my earlier scepticism), it suggests that the independent in Nebraska might be worth a small punt.
I put a bit of cash on Nevada yesterday. But really the safest/value bet at the moment is just Harris to win, if that Selzer poll is anywhere near right. I wonder if she'll be favourite again before Tuesday ?
That's a good interview. You definitely need to take her polling very seriously.
Selzer describes her methodology as hinging on not making assumptions about the electorate from one race to the next, so it's plausible she's picking up a shift that is being missed by the rest.
Indeed. That's why I said I think she's more likely to be the one who's right in an election like this one. We know that most uf the rest are weighting by previous vote (and also by likelihood to vote) - which by definition will undersample a whole swath of voters.
If those voters skew in a particular direction, and if they turn out in greater numbers than predicted, we could have the diametric opposite of the polling error from 2020 (which Selzer also got right).
Or she could have got it wrong for just about the first time.
For what it's worth, I think it is highly likely that - like in 2020 and 2016 - one of the two candidates will sweep the swing states.
I would also think that the Iowa poll might also have an impact about how we think about two Senate races.
My general view was that Sherrod Brown was going to struggle in a year when Trump would win Ohio by 10 points. Sure Brown will outperform Harris, but in that scenario he'd still lose by 4 to 5 points.
If Iowa is anything like the Selzer poll (i.e. close), then Ohio will probably only be 4 or 5 point win for Trump, and probably means that Brown should be favorite.
Likewise (despite my earlier scepticism), it suggests that the independent in Nebraska might be worth a small punt.
I put a bit of cash on Nevada yesterday. But really the safest/value bet at the moment is just Harris to win, if that Selzer poll is anywhere near right. I wonder if she'll be favourite again before Tuesday ?
Re Seltzer, either she or Emerson are going to look like fools in 72 hours time.
One thing I have heard mentioned - but can't see the cross tabs so cannot verify - is that only 7% of respondents in the Iowa poll mentioned the Economy as their number 1 priority. Which seems odd.
There's a really interesting map on Nate Silver, which shows inflation over the last four years by State. The Midwest has suffered almost none, while the Southwest has had a very serious problem.
That could be why Iowa (and Wisconsin and Michigan) are outperforming for Harris, while Nevada and Arizona are much worse
In the last 24 hours 538 chance of victory has gone
From: Trump 50, Harris 49
To: Trump 53, Harris 47
They have the Selzer Iowa poll but it has been much more than offset by a whole host of AtlasIntel polls showing Trump leading in every battleground state.
Of course AtlasIntel could be wrong but we need to be careful not to only consider the polls we like - albeit that Selzer has a brilliant reputation.
F1: having been rained off yesterday, qualifying is rescheduled for 10.30am this morning and the race has shifted to 3.30pm. There remains a high risk of rain, although hopefully in lower quantities, throughout pretty much the entire day.
Re Seltzer, either she or Emerson are going to look like fools in 72 hours time.
One thing I have heard mentioned - but can't see the cross tabs so cannot verify - is that only 7% of respondents in the Iowa poll mentioned the Economy as their number 1 priority. Which seems odd.
There's a really interesting map on Nate Silver, which shows inflation over the last four years by State. The Midwest has suffered almost none, while the Southwest has had a very serious problem.
That could be why Iowa (and Wisconsin and Michigan) are outperforming for Harris, while Nevada and Arizona are much worse
Here's the map:
FWIW: if the inflation map is correct, Harris will win Wisconsin and Michigan, and lose Nevada, Arizona and - yes - Pennsylvania.
F1: having been rained off yesterday, qualifying is rescheduled for 10.30am this morning and the race has shifted to 3.30pm. There remains a high risk of rain, although hopefully in lower quantities, throughout pretty much the entire day.
I like my dad's idea: F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport. Make the cars so they can drive in whatever weather. Have tyres for hot weather, wet weather, flooded tracks... if a road car can drive in it, so should an F1 car.
(Yes, I know this is impractical - it would be fun though.)
OK, Nevada. Let's predict the votes based on the change in a thing since 2020.
2020 Results * 2020 results were DEM 50.06%, REP 47.67%, which are rebased to DEM 51.22% REP 48.78% to total to 100% * DEMVOTE2024 = DEMVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then) * REPVOTE2024 = REPVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then)
Uniform State Swing: (based on state poll then vs state poll now) * DEM 48.22%, REP 51.95%, REP WINS
Registration: (based on registration numbers then vs registration numbers now) * DEM 48.98%, REP 51.02%, REP WINS
Guys, I'm sorry, but I don't see her winning this. Uniform swing, early votes and registration changes all indicate that Trump will win Nevada. Happy to hear counterargument but if it's "there will be a late swing" I will say bad words.
Trying to be objective - which, on Trump, I admit I find difficult - it is hard to see how his campaign has added voters, but easy to imagine it has turned off significant portions of his soft vote.
Trump has a problem with women. Not just young voters, but across all age ranges. His comment "whether the women like it or not, I'm going to protect them" may prove to have crystallized Harris voters even more than the comments on Puerto Rico. Having an adjudicated sex offender who grabs women by the pussy controlling women's bodies? Nah.
Abortion is a huge vote driver in this election. It seems doubtless that Republicans are on the wrong side of this line to the tune of 70:30 nationally. It will be fascinating to see how the abortion propositions in various states ties in with a surprisingly high Harris vote.
Especially Florida.
The other driver is the risk to democracy. 6th January will influence votes on Tuesday.
Harris will have shown she is the no risk candidate.
In the last 24 hours 538 chance of victory has gone
From: Trump 50, Harris 49
To: Trump 53, Harris 47
They have the Selzer Iowa poll but it has been much more than offset by a whole host of AtlasIntel polls showing Trump leading in every battleground state.
Of course AtlasIntel could be wrong but we need to be careful not to only consider the polls we like - albeit that Selzer has a brilliant reputation.
Agree absolutely: however the one thing that all the national polls have tended to show is that Harris doing a little better with white voters than Biden, and a lot worse with Hispanic and Black voters.
And the Selzer Iowa poll - and many of the AtlasIntel numbers - are consistent with that. If both are a little bit right, it would suggest Harris loses Iowa (but relatively narrowly), but holds on nearby Wisconsin and Michigan. It would also suggest she loses in the Southwest.
OK, Nevada. Let's predict the votes based on the change in a thing since 2020.
2020 Results * 2020 results were DEM 50.06%, REP 47.67%, which are rebased to DEM 51.22% REP 48.78% to total to 100% * DEMVOTE2024 = DEMVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then) * REPVOTE2024 = REPVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then)
Uniform State Swing: (based on state poll then vs state poll now) * DEM 48.22%, REP 51.95%, REP WINS
Registration: (based on registration numbers then vs registration numbers now) * DEM 48.98%, REP 51.02%, REP WINS
Guys, I'm sorry, but I don't see her winning this. Uniform swing, early votes and registration changes all indicate that Trump will win Nevada. Happy to hear counterargument but if it's "there will be a late swing" I will say bad words.
How are you accounting for those registered independent ?
I'm not.
I need a brutal sieve. I don't have the time nor the tech to do anything but something brutal. I don't need to know the exact numbers, just which of DEM and REP are bigger. So it becomes as simple as:
Too brutal. There are more voters registered independent that either Rep or Dem, in Nevada. You can’t really ignore how they might break - and that’s at least fairly likely to decade the outcome.
Not only that, but I suspect that the "new" independents are likely younger than average, and more likely to be Democratic leaning. In the "old days" they would have been registered Democrats, but now they've been automatically registered to vote, they haven't bothered setting up a party affiliation.
Mr. Jessop, there is a problem in that the wet weather tyre works in a tiny window of rain before the safety car or a red flag comes out, so they're practically never used for racing. Scope to increase that.
F1: I'm going to have a tiny bet on Hulkenberg to win qualifying each way. He did this years ago, in a Williams, on a wet-but-drying track. If you've got a free £1 bet or suchlike, this is when to use it.
Edited extra bit: those odds shift to 61 with boost, or you can back him at 200 on Betfair.
Edited 2, Edit Harder: backed with a pound or two at 210 on Betfair, set up a covering hedge at 20 and a green-each-way one at 5. Unlikely but not impossible.
That's a good interview. You definitely need to take her polling very seriously.
Selzer describes her methodology as hinging on not making assumptions about the electorate from one race to the next, so it's plausible she's picking up a shift that is being missed by the rest.
Indeed. That's why I said I think she's more likely to be the one who's right in an election like this one. We know that most uf the rest are weighting by previous vote (and also by likelihood to vote) - which by definition will undersample a whole swath of voters.
If those voters skew in a particular direction, and if they turn out in greater numbers than predicted, we could have the diametric opposite of the polling error from 2020 (which Selzer also got right).
Or she could have got it wrong for just about the first time.
For what it's worth, I think it is highly likely that - like in 2020 and 2016 - one of the two candidates will sweep the swing states.
I would also think that the Iowa poll might also have an impact about how we think about two Senate races.
My general view was that Sherrod Brown was going to struggle in a year when Trump would win Ohio by 10 points. Sure Brown will outperform Harris, but in that scenario he'd still lose by 4 to 5 points.
If Iowa is anything like the Selzer poll (i.e. close), then Ohio will probably only be 4 or 5 point win for Trump, and probably means that Brown should be favorite.
Likewise (despite my earlier scepticism), it suggests that the independent in Nebraska might be worth a small punt.
I put a bit of cash on Nevada yesterday. But really the safest/value bet at the moment is just Harris to win, if that Selzer poll is anywhere near right. I wonder if she'll be favourite again before Tuesday ?
I put some of my Kemi winnings on a Harris win at 5/4 yesterday. Quite happy with that and my first bet on this race. Cannot see how trump was value at 4/6
Re Seltzer, either she or Emerson are going to look like fools in 72 hours time.
One thing I have heard mentioned - but can't see the cross tabs so cannot verify - is that only 7% of respondents in the Iowa poll mentioned the Economy as their number 1 priority. Which seems odd.
There's a really interesting map on Nate Silver, which shows inflation over the last four years by State. The Midwest has suffered almost none, while the Southwest has had a very serious problem.
That could be why Iowa (and Wisconsin and Michigan) are outperforming for Harris, while Nevada and Arizona are much worse
The other state variable is Dobbs.
In terms of negative effects, it obviously has a greater effect in red states - and not just on the availability of abortion.
Maternity service clinics - particularly in rural areas - have been closing across the country, Rightly or wrongly (there's also the issue of funding and reimbursement levels), that's getting blamed on the red state abortion bans. (Which certainly have an effect on insurance cost and availability for practitioners.)
That's a good interview. You definitely need to take her polling very seriously.
Selzer describes her methodology as hinging on not making assumptions about the electorate from one race to the next, so it's plausible she's picking up a shift that is being missed by the rest.
Indeed. That's why I said I think she's more likely to be the one who's right in an election like this one. We know that most uf the rest are weighting by previous vote (and also by likelihood to vote) - which by definition will undersample a whole swath of voters.
If those voters skew in a particular direction, and if they turn out in greater numbers than predicted, we could have the diametric opposite of the polling error from 2020 (which Selzer also got right).
Or she could have got it wrong for just about the first time.
For what it's worth, I think it is highly likely that - like in 2020 and 2016 - one of the two candidates will sweep the swing states.
I would also think that the Iowa poll might also have an impact about how we think about two Senate races.
My general view was that Sherrod Brown was going to struggle in a year when Trump would win Ohio by 10 points. Sure Brown will outperform Harris, but in that scenario he'd still lose by 4 to 5 points.
If Iowa is anything like the Selzer poll (i.e. close), then Ohio will probably only be 4 or 5 point win for Trump, and probably means that Brown should be favorite.
Likewise (despite my earlier scepticism), it suggests that the independent in Nebraska might be worth a small punt.
I put a bit of cash on Nevada yesterday. But really the safest/value bet at the moment is just Harris to win, if that Selzer poll is anywhere near right. I wonder if she'll be favourite again before Tuesday ?
I put some of my Kemi winnings on a Harris win at 5/4 yesterday. Quite happy with that and my first bet on this race. Cannot see how trump was value at 4/6
I sold Trump on Polymarket at 64 - meaning I got close to 2-1 on a 50/50 shot.
OK, Nevada. Let's predict the votes based on the change in a thing since 2020.
2020 Results * 2020 results were DEM 50.06%, REP 47.67%, which are rebased to DEM 51.22% REP 48.78% to total to 100% * DEMVOTE2024 = DEMVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then) * REPVOTE2024 = REPVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then)
Uniform State Swing: (based on state poll then vs state poll now) * DEM 48.22%, REP 51.95%, REP WINS
Registration: (based on registration numbers then vs registration numbers now) * DEM 48.98%, REP 51.02%, REP WINS
Guys, I'm sorry, but I don't see her winning this. Uniform swing, early votes and registration changes all indicate that Trump will win Nevada. Happy to hear counterargument but if it's "there will be a late swing" I will say bad words.
"Donald Trump's day of campaigning on Saturday ended in North Carolina, where he boasted about holding "the biggest rallies in the history of any country"."
Nuremberg: "Hold my stein..."
1934: The 6th Party Congress was held in Nuremberg, 5–10 September 1934, which was attended by about 700,000 Nazi Party supporters.
Now that could revolutionise pandemic response. A national network woukd made it far easier to control something like COVID, without much of the economic dislocation.
A poll in Iowa that has unexpectedly put Kamala Harris ahead of Donald Trump in what was previously expected to be a safe state for the Republicans has sent shockwaves through America’s poll-watchers......
The Selzer poll has Harris over Trump 47% to 44% among likely voters. A September poll showed Trump with a four-point lead over Harris and a June survey showed him with an 18-point lead over then-candidate Joe Biden.
A poll in Iowa that has unexpectedly put Kamala Harris ahead of Donald Trump in what was previously expected to be a safe state for the Republicans has sent shockwaves through America’s poll-watchers......
The Selzer poll has Harris over Trump 47% to 44% among likely voters. A September poll showed Trump with a four-point lead over Harris and a June survey showed him with an 18-point lead over then-candidate Joe Biden.
A poll in Iowa that has unexpectedly put Kamala Harris ahead of Donald Trump in what was previously expected to be a safe state for the Republicans has sent shockwaves through America’s poll-watchers......
The Selzer poll has Harris over Trump 47% to 44% among likely voters. A September poll showed Trump with a four-point lead over Harris and a June survey showed him with an 18-point lead over then-candidate Joe Biden.
Trump’s campaign are obviously worried, given how hard they are pushing the Emerson poll.
Wrong thinking really. They should be yelling from the rooftops that this shows he will lose if his supporters don’t vote, but of course they daren’t as that would wreck his narrative that the election is being stolen.
A poll in Iowa that has unexpectedly put Kamala Harris ahead of Donald Trump in what was previously expected to be a safe state for the Republicans has sent shockwaves through America’s poll-watchers......
The Selzer poll has Harris over Trump 47% to 44% among likely voters. A September poll showed Trump with a four-point lead over Harris and a June survey showed him with an 18-point lead over then-candidate Joe Biden.
A 21% switch pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of anyone thinking keeping Sleepy Joe as the candidate was wise.
Trump would have been winning some crazy unlikely states.
I might well be wrong, but I don't think the September and June polls mentioned were also by Selzer, so the methodologies will be different, and direct comparisons harder?
Comments
Purpose is to DEPRESS voter turnout, in particular by women (but NOT just) which is one of the well-known affects of negative campaigning. Of course DJT is also trying to BOOST turnout among infrequently-voting wackjobs of his ilk - but that a separate strategy, and Trump/Vance rhetoric is designed to appeal to them.
In contrast, Harris needs HIGHER turnout in general, and her positivity is also strategic.
The Selzer poll is well respected and will give a boost to the Harris campaign . It will cause an absolute meltdown in the Trump campaign so let’s just enjoy that !
Imagine crushing your entire profession like that.
I remember seeing Biden polling so far ahead in polls in 2020 that 413 EVs was a possibility if you believed the polls
Then Selzer dropped a Trump +7 poll
And I thought, "Either she's finally missed the mark hard, or everyone else is wrong"
And guess where we ended up
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1852860758893248773
Though, of course, it’s entirely possible that this is the election where Seltzer is finally wrong.
But I know where I’m putting a bit more cash tonight.
Nevada voter reg affiliation change(s) since then due to several factor, including influx of Californicators and (perhaps) changes in party rules re: primary voting.
@Samfr
·
51m
Wow. Ann Selzer's Iowa polls have a great track record.
If Harris is even close in Iowa - let alone winning - then she should be winning Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennslyvania by more than the poll averages there are saying.
"Older and politically independent women" driving the late shift to Harris
https://x.com/Samfr/status/1852849276075790651
2020 Results
* 2020 results were DEM 50.06%, REP 47.67%, which are rebased to DEM 51.22% REP 48.78% to total to 100%
* DEMVOTE2024 = DEMVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then)
* REPVOTE2024 = REPVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then)
Uniform State Swing: (based on state poll then vs state poll now)
* DEM 48.22%, REP 51.95%, REP WINS
Registration: (based on registration numbers then vs registration numbers now)
* DEM 48.98%, REP 51.02%, REP WINS
Guys, I'm sorry, but I don't see her winning this. Uniform swing, early votes and registration changes all indicate that Trump will win Nevada. Happy to hear counterargument but if it's "there will be a late swing" I will say bad words.
https://www.270towin.com
Women voters might be shy voters. Many may be the shy GOP to Dem switchers.
With stunts with garbage trucks and wall to wall coverage of garbagegate and trash talk on Fox and other news, it’s helping Latino to be aware and reminded its Trumps campaign who kicked the anger off, and exactly how they did, like continued digging when you could be better off moving on. It’s certainly switched many Latino.
Trump supporters are certainly not garbage imo.
They’re minions.
I need a brutal sieve. I don't have the time nor the tech to do anything but something brutal. I don't need to know the exact numbers, just which of DEM and REP are bigger. So it becomes as simple as:
* DEMVOTE2024 = DEMVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then)
* REPVOTE2024 = REPVOTE2020*(thing now)/(thing then)
Iowa specialist.
Seeing as how they are in 2024 (as opposed to 2020) the largest group of registered voters in the state. AND not affiiated - at least formally - with ANY political party.
I cannot imagine Trump, the republicans or their celebrity oligarchs taking defeat well.
https://podtail.com/en/podcast/the-focus-group-with-sarah-longwell/s4-ep15-it-s-not-that-hard-to-win-iowa-with-j-ann-/
Firstly, Independent’s who put Trump in in 2016, now understand him and his platform an awful lot better. They could easily think, I want better options next time, certainly better GOP option, so if my vote finish Trump here, and gives Rep a reset, it’s in my interest to do that.
Dems 4.3 / 5.6 with Betfair.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.229997507
There are more voters registered independent that either Rep or Dem, in Nevada. You can’t really ignore how they might break - and that’s at least fairly likely to decade the outcome.
https://www.270towin.com/maps/538-forecast-2024-presidential-election
One thing I have heard mentioned - but can't see the cross tabs so cannot verify - is that only 7% of respondents in the Iowa poll mentioned the Economy as their number 1 priority. Which seems odd.
Kam 270 Trump 268?
Lmfao wait I just realized this is almost exactly 2020
2020 result was
Trump 53.1
Biden 44.9
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1852832840158695769
https://x.com/ppollingnumbers/status/1852864552666337380
General Election Poll
🔴 Arizona - Trump +6
🔴 North Carolina - Trump +3
🔴 Georgia - Trump +2
🔴 Nevada - Trump +5
🔴 Pennsylvania - Trump +2
🔴 Michigan - Trump +2
🔴 Wisconsin - Trump +1
Atlasintel #A - LV - 11/2
Like I said upthread, extrapolating from last election in Nevada, is at best a crapshoot.
Though of course you might be rolling 7s instead of snake-eyes.
https://bsky.app/profile/nameshiv.bsky.social/post/3l7ysmficom2q
It would be nice if Kam can win in Sunbelt somewhere, so it’s a bit less tight than all on tight rusty races.
The closing stages of the campaign Kam has both won the campaigning, and got some polling swingback, so I feel a lot better about the Rust Belt states going into next week.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/02/us/politics/election-2024-harris-progressives.html
"In Shift From 2020, Identity Politics Loses Its Grip on the Country
There are signs that society is moving away from the progressive left’s often strict expectations about how to discuss culture and politics."
We're falling back -1 hour after springing ahead +1 earlier this year.
I’m pretty confident the independents will break for Harris, thoigh.
GOP to Dem switchers will be going about the business unseen.
Trump/Kam canvesser knocks on the door “have you voted,can you tell me who for?”
“Yes. We have both voted already, for Trump.”
Snorkelling.
https://old.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/1gi7z5s/market_risk_of_a_51_attack_on_polymarket/
https://x.com/paulkrugman/status/1852840853733359668
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics/usa-presidential-election-2024/election-winner-betting-1.176878927
Anything less than a Trump win by 7% is disastrous for his Presidential chances.
For the broader picture, bear in mind that Iowa has some of the toughest abortion laws in the US - it bans almost all abortions after 6 weeks.
The numbers are not good for the Democrats. However, and it's a big however, there are two changes that have happened since 2020.
First, voter registration is now automatic with Drivers License renewal. No-one knows what this means in terms of the predictive nature of early votes in prior elections.
Secondly, there has continued to be a large influx from California. Reno and Vegas property prices are still much cheaper than the Bay Area or LA. Remote work has been a thing that has enabled younger college-educated tech workers to move to Nevada. No one knows what this means.
To favour Trump, the Republicans did win the state governor race in 2022. But they didn't make any headway in the state house and lost the other statewide offices, the senate race and the house districts.
To favour Harris, there is an abortion referendum on the ballot (question 6). Democrats are running hard on this. I could see this juicing the women vote, even those that are registered Republican.
In short, as Ralston says, nobody knows and anybody who thinks they know doesn't. I certainly don't. I could easily see a women-led Harris win by 5. Or a Latino swing to a Trump win by 5.
So I'll finish with the only thing I can personally add, which is in my neighbourhood I see no Trump signs this year. In 2020 they were in about 5 gardens in my street. There are no Harris signs, but there were no Biden signs either.
Along the roads I see more Trump signs than Harris signs, but again less than in 2020. There are still people driving around with Trump flags, but less than in 2020.
Finally, the Trump signs show all the signs of leaning heavily into crazy. One official one says "Trump was right about EVERYTHING". As a friend remarked to me, "Inject bleach if you agree". Another says "TRUMP VANCE MUSK KENNEDY" which is not the positive message they think it is. I'd say these signs, if anything, are more motivating for people to vote Harris because like everything Trump, they go too far.
I guess we'll find out in 72 hours!
That's why I said I think she's more likely to be the one who's right in an election like this one.
We know that most uf the rest are weighting by previous vote (and also by likelihood to vote) - which by definition will undersample a whole swath of voters.
If those voters skew in a particular direction, and if they turn out in greater numbers than predicted, we could have the diametric opposite of the polling error from 2020 (which Selzer also got right).
Or she could have got it wrong for just about the first time.
Always good to get first hand stuff.
That could be why Iowa (and Wisconsin and Michigan) are outperforming for Harris, while Nevada and Arizona are much worse
I would also think that the Iowa poll might also have an impact about how we think about two Senate races.
My general view was that Sherrod Brown was going to struggle in a year when Trump would win Ohio by 10 points. Sure Brown will outperform Harris, but in that scenario he'd still lose by 4 to 5 points.
If Iowa is anything like the Selzer poll (i.e. close), then Ohio will probably only be 4 or 5 point win for Trump, and probably means that Brown should be favorite.
Likewise (despite my earlier scepticism), it suggests that the independent in Nebraska might be worth a small punt.
But really the safest/value bet at the moment is just Harris to win, if that Selzer poll is anywhere near right.
I wonder if she'll be favourite again before Tuesday ?
From: Trump 50, Harris 49
To: Trump 53, Harris 47
They have the Selzer Iowa poll but it has been much more than offset by a whole host of AtlasIntel polls showing Trump leading in every battleground state.
Of course AtlasIntel could be wrong but we need to be careful not to only consider the polls we like - albeit that Selzer has a brilliant reputation.
F1: having been rained off yesterday, qualifying is rescheduled for 10.30am this morning and the race has shifted to 3.30pm. There remains a high risk of rain, although hopefully in lower quantities, throughout pretty much the entire day.
(Yes, I know this is impractical - it would be fun though.)
Trump has a problem with women. Not just young voters, but across all age ranges. His comment "whether the women like it or not, I'm going to protect them" may prove to have crystallized Harris voters even more than the comments on Puerto Rico. Having an adjudicated sex offender who grabs women by the pussy controlling women's bodies? Nah.
Abortion is a huge vote driver in this election. It seems doubtless that Republicans are on the wrong side of this line to the tune of 70:30 nationally. It will be fascinating to see how the abortion propositions in various states ties in with a surprisingly high Harris vote.
Especially Florida.
The other driver is the risk to democracy. 6th January will influence votes on Tuesday.
Harris will have shown she is the no risk candidate.
And the Selzer Iowa poll - and many of the AtlasIntel numbers - are consistent with that. If both are a little bit right, it would suggest Harris loses Iowa (but relatively narrowly), but holds on nearby Wisconsin and Michigan. It would also suggest she loses in the Southwest.
F1: I'm going to have a tiny bet on Hulkenberg to win qualifying each way. He did this years ago, in a Williams, on a wet-but-drying track. If you've got a free £1 bet or suchlike, this is when to use it.
Edited extra bit: those odds shift to 61 with boost, or you can back him at 200 on Betfair.
Edited 2, Edit Harder: backed with a pound or two at 210 on Betfair, set up a covering hedge at 20 and a green-each-way one at 5. Unlikely but not impossible.
In terms of negative effects, it obviously has a greater effect in red states - and not just on the availability of abortion.
Maternity service clinics - particularly in rural areas - have been closing across the country,
Rightly or wrongly (there's also the issue of funding and reimbursement levels), that's getting blamed on the red state abortion bans.
(Which certainly have an effect on insurance cost and availability for practitioners.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cg57dg5zyzrt?post=asset:020d94ec-52dc-434f-bf26-90e10d404eb5#post
Which is insane.
Well, he wanted to hang Mike Pence, anyway.
Nuremberg: "Hold my stein..."
1934: The 6th Party Congress was held in Nuremberg, 5–10 September 1934, which was attended by about 700,000 Nazi Party supporters.
@MaxPB and I have been pointing out that identity politics is on the wane for some time.
It's amazing how well air sampling works...
https://x.com/SolidEvidence/status/1852804401095720983
Now that could revolutionise pandemic response. A national network woukd made it far easier to control something like COVID, without much of the economic dislocation.
https://x.com/nypost/status/1852383790720496006?s=61
The Selzer poll has Harris over Trump 47% to 44% among likely voters. A September poll showed Trump with a four-point lead over Harris and a June survey showed him with an 18-point lead over then-candidate Joe Biden.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/02/harris-unexpected-lead-over-trump-iowa-selzer-poll
Trump would have been winning some crazy unlikely states.
Wrong thinking really. They should be yelling from the rooftops that this shows he will lose if his supporters don’t vote, but of course they daren’t as that would wreck his narrative that the election is being stolen.