One thing that makes me slightly sceptical about the polls is that they have Harris ahead by only about 4.9% in New Hampshire compared to 7.3% at the 2020 election. I don't really believe it'll be that close in NH, so maybe the same sort of error exists in polls for other states. (It's plausible Trump might trim the margin back very slightly to maybe 6.5%).
Interesting analysis of the Selzer poll by an Iowan from abortion, tariffs, Tim Walz, and child labour laws perspectives. And the fact that many GOP voters in IA died during COVID due to the Governor refusing to mandate mask-wearing. The first time I have heard that argument deployed recently:
The stars seem slowly to be aligning for Harris, as election day approaches.
A week to 10 days ago it looked like Trump had it won to me. But he's been tired, low wattage, even more incoherent to the point of almost incomprehensible and Harris has finished incredibly strongly. Now I really don't know. Has it tipped back enough? I hope so.
Yes, I would certainly have been with you there David. But - as you say - the sheer difference in body language from the two candidates is quite startling. And body language is hard to fake. Harris is glowing. Does she think she’s won?
Hmm.
Her appearance on SNL was one of the highlights of the campaign. It beamed confidence.
Trump is NOT happy about that
And Vance is calling her trash tonight
They look like sore losers at this point
It's OK for Trump and for Vance to call Harris " and those around her" trash, but it is not OK for Biden to call people surrounding Trump " trash". The one critique is unacceptable to the networks, the radio stations and the troll farm that is X, but not so much as a whimper if Republicans make the same insult.
I was fascinated by Trump's plan to put Harris in a ring with Mike Tyson. Very post apocalyptic, very Beyond Thunderdome.
One thing that makes me slightly sceptical about the polls is that they have Harris ahead by only about 4.9% in New Hampshire compared to 7.3% at the 2020 election. I don't really believe it'll be that close in NH, so maybe the same sort of error exists in polls for other states. (It's plausible Trump might trim the margin back very slightly to maybe 6.5%).
CNN is reporting that RFK Jr has said Trump will remove fluoride from their drinking water.
Am I missing something? Can any of our US correspondents explain whether fluoride is the issue of the hour in the U.S….
So following on from a trade crisis from tariffs added to imported goods and services, the USA has an RFK tooth decay crisis which in turn leads to a heart disease crisis.
Perhaps it's a Camelot plot to rid the nation of hygiene -free rednecks.
CNN is reporting that RFK Jr has said Trump will remove fluoride from their drinking water.
Am I missing something? Can any of our US correspondents explain whether fluoride is the issue of the hour in the U.S….
So following on from a trade crisis from tariffs added to imported goods and services, the USA has an RFK tooth decay crisis which in turn leads to a heart disease crisis.
Perhaps it's a Camelot plot to rid the nation of hygiene -free rednecks.
You’ve missed the infectious disease disaster, when no kid is allowed vaccines and the country loses herd immunity to all previously conquered diseases.
One thing that makes me slightly sceptical about the polls is that they have Harris ahead by only about 4.9% in New Hampshire compared to 7.3% at the 2020 election. I don't really believe it'll be that close in NH, so maybe the same sort of error exists in polls for other states. (It's plausible Trump might trim the margin back very slightly to maybe 6.5%).
What site let you stake that, and what do you get if you win?
I just caught myself designing a cryptoeconomic system for this. It's interesting because when you talk about decentralized prediction markets people say, "couldn't that be used to fund assassinations" and you could use that precise property to make the market work.
The stars seem slowly to be aligning for Harris, as election day approaches.
A week to 10 days ago it looked like Trump had it won to me. But he's been tired, low wattage, even more incoherent to the point of almost incomprehensible and Harris has finished incredibly strongly. Now I really don't know. Has it tipped back enough? I hope so.
Yes, I would certainly have been with you there David. But - as you say - the sheer difference in body language from the two candidates is quite startling. And body language is hard to fake. Harris is glowing. Does she think she’s won?
Hmm.
Her appearance on SNL was one of the highlights of the campaign. It beamed confidence.
Trump is NOT happy about that
And Vance is calling her trash tonight
They look like sore losers at this point
It's OK for Trump and for Vance to call Harris " and those around her" trash, but it is not OK for Biden to call people surrounding Trump " trash". The one critique is unacceptable to the networks, the radio stations and the troll farm that is X, but not so much as a whimper if Republicans make the same insult.
I was fascinated by Trump's plan to put Harris in a ring with Mike Tyson. Very post apocalyptic, very Beyond Thunderdome.
One poster on here was complaining that Biden suggested that convicted felon Donald Trump be locked up, and yet didn't utter a peep when it was Trump doing the proposing.
Without sounding hyperbolic, tomorrow feels like the most consequential election in my lifetime..and I say this as someone who had to make life changing decisions following the Brexit vote...
if Trump wins, I'm done with politics. If Harris wins, then the world will feel that much more a better place...and hopefully, the Republicans can choose someone next time who doesn't scare the living shit out of me...
My worry is that Trump has now infected his party such that even if he loses, the next Republican President (and there will be one) will still embolden Putin or his successor and trigger a global trade war.
We need him to not just lose, but lose so badly that the Democrats take the House and Senate on the coattails. And that seems inconceivable.
I know people might think I'm a broken record on this, but how do you see Putin taking Crimea and invading Donbas under Obama and then launching a full-scale invasion under Biden and conclude that Trump is the problem?
I am not sure there is even a correlation in terms of the invasion of 2022 Have you any evidence other than the convenience of dates that Putin held off either in deference to or in fear of Trump?
What I think might be true is Trump is not best equipped as an honest broker between Putin and Zelensky.
As an aside Nevada will be the last of the lower 48 to begin counting. We'll likely be 95+% reported for the other swing states by the time Nevada announces even a single vote. From 538: "No results will be reported until the last voter in line has voted, which is usually hours after the official close of polls."
And Nevada polls don't close until 10pm Eastern, so it will probable 1am Eastern (6am London) before we start to see results come through.
Rather amazingly the Greens failed to get on the ballot in New York state. No other minor party candidates managed it either, so it's a straight fight between Harris and Trump in the one state where one might have expected more candidates.
What site let you stake that, and what do you get if you win?
I just caught myself designing a cryptoeconomic system for this. It's interesting because when you talk about decentralized prediction markets people say, "couldn't that be used to fund assassinations" and you could use that precise property to make the market work.
We are building the biggest and broadest coalition in American Political History. This includes record-breaking numbers of Arab and Muslim Voters in Michigan who want PEACE. They know Kamala and her warmonger Cabinet will invade the Middle East, get millions of Muslims killed, and start World War III. VOTE TRUMP, AND BRING BACK PEACE!
Interesting fact: it looks like about a million more people are registered to vote in New York state in 2024 compared to 2020 despite the fact the total population of the state is about half a million lower than it was then.
Interesting fact: it looks like about a million more people are registered to vote in New York state in 2024 compared to 2020 despite the fact the total population of the state is about half a million lower than it was then.
Automatic voter registration? Dem states have been making it so you get registered automatically when you renew your driving license. I guess removing a hurdle for low-motivation voters with driving licenses will help Trump in the current environment...
Economics data looks good for Harris in the blue wall. Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin all have inflation rates below the US average and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have unemployment rates below the US average too.
Nevada has the worst unemployment rate in the US though and looks to be heading for Trump. As does Georgia which has inflation running above the US average
Interesting fact: it looks like about a million more people are registered to vote in New York state in 2024 compared to 2020 despite the fact the total population of the state is about half a million lower than it was then.
Automatic voter registration? Dem states have been making it so you get registered automatically when you renew your driving license. I guess removing a hurdle for low-motivation voters with driving licenses will help Trump in the current environment...
Funnily enough, in Montana, the opposite measure may just help Jon Tester hold on to his Senate Seat.
The Republican legislature passed measures that purged people without current ID from the electoral rolls. Unfortunately, it appears they have purged a whole bunch of libertarian Republicans who weren't very good at keeping their driving licenses up to date.
Early voting 20240 vs. 2020 in swing states shows a big shift:
2024: Rural: 6.2M Urban: 3.8M
2020: Rural: 6.4M Urban: 6.2M
Target Smart
Jeez, she's dead. That lines up with that gossip from the New York Republican.
She is if these figures mean what they appear to mean, but I don't understand them enough to be able to say that. As we know there are all sorts of ways of presenting data to make it seem like it's telling a particular story when it isn't really.
Early voting 20240 vs. 2020 in swing states shows a big shift:
2024: Rural: 6.2M Urban: 3.8M
2020: Rural: 6.4M Urban: 6.2M
Target Smart
Jeez, she's dead. That lines up with that gossip from the New York Republican.
She is if these figures mean what they appear to mean, but I don't understand them enough to be able to say that. As we know there are all sorts of ways of presenting data to make it seem like it's telling a particular story when it isn't really.
Nevada found that the urban vote just didn't turn up. This was so dramatic Ralston had to invent a set of invisible voters to predict a Kamala win. I don't believe him. If that's reflected across the swing states, the Dems will have to get millions of people out on last day who didn't bother to vote earlier. How do they propose to do that?
The stars seem slowly to be aligning for Harris, as election day approaches.
A week to 10 days ago it looked like Trump had it won to me. But he's been tired, low wattage, even more incoherent to the point of almost incomprehensible and Harris has finished incredibly strongly. Now I really don't know. Has it tipped back enough? I hope so.
Yes, I would certainly have been with you there David. But - as you say - the sheer difference in body language from the two candidates is quite startling. And body language is hard to fake. Harris is glowing. Does she think she’s won?
Hmm.
Her appearance on SNL was one of the highlights of the campaign. It beamed confidence.
Trump is NOT happy about that
And Vance is calling her trash tonight
They look like sore losers at this point
It's OK for Trump and for Vance to call Harris " and those around her" trash, but it is not OK for Biden to call people surrounding Trump " trash". The one critique is unacceptable to the networks, the radio stations and the troll farm that is X, but not so much as a whimper if Republicans make the same insult.
I was fascinated by Trump's plan to put Harris in a ring with Mike Tyson. Very post apocalyptic, very Beyond Thunderdome.
My money is on Harris in that fight. She carries a gun...
But we have the actual number from the Georgia Secretary of State on turnout by county. And the big urban Democratic strongholds are turning out more than the rural ones.
Now, it may be that the delta is less than in 2020. But given that Fulton/DeKalb/Cobb (i.e. Atlanta) averaging about 60% right now, that doesn't seem *very* likely.
Likewise, the overall headline numbers don't make an enormous amount of sense, given we're at around 1.5m turnout from those three counties alone. You would need to see staggering drops in other urban areas.
Over the past couple of weeks,I have frequently felt that a lot of the 'analysis' from the Dem side - abortion rights will bring over lots of R women, Trump's turning people off with his weirdness, young people are feeling energised - has smacked a lot of the 'poll unskewing' that we saw from the Rep side in 2012: a bif of a desperate hunt to find something to give them hope. While the US economy is improving, there has been a perception that it's bad, and it did feel like a 'change' election. I was still holding on to hope, but it was hard. However...
There are four people I've learned to really trust on their areas of expertise, in detailed aspects of US elections: Dave Wasserman for on-the-night race calls Michael Macdonald for early voting Ann Selzer for Iowa Jon Ralston for Nevada.
I've been following Ralston since 2012 at least, and Selzer since 2004. Iowa never seemed in contention this year, but if Selzer says it is, then I take her over a whole legion of pollsters and analysts saying otherwise. I thought that the wonky economy in Nevada, plus the demographics, meant that Nevada was a likely loss for the Dems, but if Ralston says otherwise, albeit by a tiny margin, then I have to trust him.
If Iowa goes Dem, then Trump has no chance in Wisconsin or Michigan. And maybe Walz will help there too. If Nevada, the flakiest bit of the southwest, stays Dem, then Arizona stays Dem far more easily. The mechanisms for the a Dem win cited by Selzer apply elsewhere too - women (including R women) going heavily Dem, undecideds moving D, lots of new voters (the other day, 1 in 8 early voters in Detroit were on-the-day registrants!). And while I thought initially the garbage island 'joke' was trivial, it turns out it's not been seen that way
So, I think Harris wins IA (Selzer); MI and WI (because of IA); NV (Ralston); AZ (Ralston and Latino), PA (Puerto Rican and massive GOTV from Dems - they canvassed in four hours on Saturday the total Rep target for the whole campaign); NC (women, undecideds, hurricane effects), NE-02, and FL. Yes I think the Dems win Florida. Trump gains GA. It was insanely narrow last time, the reported gains for Trump among young black men are apparently real, and the Abrams GOTV machine has by all accounts fallen apart.
Final EC score: 341-197. (edited, I forgot to switch NC on the 270towin map!)
In the Senate, the Dems lose WV and MT. I'd love to see Tester hold on, but I can't quite stretch that far. They hold everywhere else including OH. They gain FL (it's those Latinos again, plus Rick Scott is a crap campaigner, and widely hated. Oh, and hurricanes). Osborn beats Fischer in NE, but keeps his word and doesn't caucus with either side. Senate finishes 50 (D+I)-49 (R) -1 (I).
Dems retake the House.
I was reading this with great interest....until you said Dems would take Florida
At best, Florida is on knife-edge for the Republicans.
Midway, they just hold it for Trump - just - but lose the Senate seat.
But quite possibly, one shit-talking comic loses them both. Or two, if you count Trump.
I'm not seeing anyway to get urban/rural splits out of that website. Or indeed, county level data to enable me to compare it to the releases from the Georgia SoS.
I also think a total of 3.8 million early votes across Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Reno, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Detroit, Madison, Charlotte, Raleigh and more seems laughably low, given that close to 1.5 million have already come in from Atlanta, and there are 5 million people in the Phoenix metropolitan area alone.
I think someone has linked to Target Smart and just made up some numbers.
I'm not seeing anyway to get urban/rural splits out of that website. Or indeed, county level data to enable me to compare it to the releases from the Georgia SoS.
I also think a total of 3.8 million early votes across Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Reno, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Detroit, Madison, Charlotte, Raleigh and more seems laughably low, given that close to 1.5 million will come from Atlanta, and there are 5 million people in the Phoenix metropolitan area alone.
I think someone has linked to Target Smart and just made up some numbers.
I'm not seeing anyway to get urban/rural splits out of that website. Or indeed, county level data to enable me to compare it to the releases from the Georgia SoS.
I also think a total of 3.8 million early votes across Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Reno, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Detroit, Madison, Charlotte, Raleigh and more seems laughably low, given that close to 1.5 million will come from Atlanta, and there are 5 million people in the Phoenix metropolitan area alone.
I think someone has linked to Target Smart and just made up some numbers.
I'm not seeing anyway to get urban/rural splits out of that website. Or indeed, county level data to enable me to compare it to the releases from the Georgia SoS.
I also think a total of 3.8 million early votes across Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Reno, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Detroit, Madison, Charlotte, Raleigh and more seems laughably low, given that close to 1.5 million will come from Atlanta, and there are 5 million people in the Phoenix metropolitan area alone.
I think someone has linked to Target Smart and just made up some numbers.
I'm not seeing anyway to get urban/rural splits out of that website. Or indeed, county level data to enable me to compare it to the releases from the Georgia SoS.
I also think a total of 3.8 million early votes across Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Reno, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Detroit, Madison, Charlotte, Raleigh and more seems laughably low, given that close to 1.5 million will come from Atlanta, and there are 5 million people in the Phoenix metropolitan area alone.
I think someone has linked to Target Smart and just made up some numbers.
Looking at Georgia (below), gives somewhat more plausible numbers:
Albeit it is worth remembering that Georgia is at 55% turnout already, not the 47% listed. So I'm not sure where TargetSmart gets its numbers from.
It's also pretty misleading to just compare Urban with Rural and miss out Suburban.
Nevertheless, assuming the numbers are directionally right, it is definitely not good news for the Democrats that Urban and Suburban are down, while Rural is up.
I'm not seeing anyway to get urban/rural splits out of that website. Or indeed, county level data to enable me to compare it to the releases from the Georgia SoS.
I also think a total of 3.8 million early votes across Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Reno, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Detroit, Madison, Charlotte, Raleigh and more seems laughably low, given that close to 1.5 million will come from Atlanta, and there are 5 million people in the Phoenix metropolitan area alone.
I think someone has linked to Target Smart and just made up some numbers.
I'm not seeing anyway to get urban/rural splits out of that website. Or indeed, county level data to enable me to compare it to the releases from the Georgia SoS.
I also think a total of 3.8 million early votes across Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Reno, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Detroit, Madison, Charlotte, Raleigh and more seems laughably low, given that close to 1.5 million will come from Atlanta, and there are 5 million people in the Phoenix metropolitan area alone.
I think someone has linked to Target Smart and just made up some numbers.
I'm not seeing anyway to get urban/rural splits out of that website. Or indeed, county level data to enable me to compare it to the releases from the Georgia SoS.
I also think a total of 3.8 million early votes across Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Reno, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Detroit, Madison, Charlotte, Raleigh and more seems laughably low, given that close to 1.5 million will come from Atlanta, and there are 5 million people in the Phoenix metropolitan area alone.
I think someone has linked to Target Smart and just made up some numbers.
Looking at Georgia (below), gives somewhat more plausible numbers:
Albeit it is worth remembering that Georgia is at 55% turnout already, not the 47% listed. So I'm not sure where TargetSmart gets its numbers from.
It's also pretty misleading to just compare Urban with Rural and miss out Suburban.
For me, the big number in Georgia is gender.
Women 56%
Men 43.8%
Non-binary 0.2%
With 55.6% turnout.
Unless those lines today are solidly male, Harris has Georgia. And its not even close. 12.2% gender difference in early voting. That is the number to look at. Woman are voting massively more than men. And that isn't great news for the pussy-grabber in chief.
BTW, the Nevada data looks surprisingly good for the Dems on those numbers: suburban + urban is 900k vs 135k for rural. (And rural is down about 25%, while suburban is only down 15%.)
I'm not seeing anyway to get urban/rural splits out of that website. Or indeed, county level data to enable me to compare it to the releases from the Georgia SoS.
I also think a total of 3.8 million early votes across Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Reno, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Detroit, Madison, Charlotte, Raleigh and more seems laughably low, given that close to 1.5 million will come from Atlanta, and there are 5 million people in the Phoenix metropolitan area alone.
I think someone has linked to Target Smart and just made up some numbers.
Looking at Georgia (below), gives somewhat more plausible numbers:
Albeit it is worth remembering that Georgia is at 55% turnout already, not the 47% listed. So I'm not sure where TargetSmart gets its numbers from.
It's also pretty misleading to just compare Urban with Rural and miss out Suburban.
For me, the big number in Georgia is gender.
Women 56%
Men 43.8%
Non-binary 0.2%
With 55.6% turnout.
Unless those lines today are solidly male, Harris has Georgia. And its not even close. 12.2% gender difference in early voting. That is the number to look at. Woman are voting massively more than men. And that isn't great news for the pussy-grabber in chief.
If you think about it, that means that 28% more women have voted than men. That's an insane gap.
Now, of course, if those voters are all conservative rural women, it *might* be different. But the gender gap between Democrats and Republicans is - in general - enormous.
I'm not seeing anyway to get urban/rural splits out of that website. Or indeed, county level data to enable me to compare it to the releases from the Georgia SoS.
I also think a total of 3.8 million early votes across Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Reno, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Detroit, Madison, Charlotte, Raleigh and more seems laughably low, given that close to 1.5 million will come from Atlanta, and there are 5 million people in the Phoenix metropolitan area alone.
I think someone has linked to Target Smart and just made up some numbers.
Looking at Georgia (below), gives somewhat more plausible numbers:
Albeit it is worth remembering that Georgia is at 55% turnout already, not the 47% listed. So I'm not sure where TargetSmart gets its numbers from.
It's also pretty misleading to just compare Urban with Rural and miss out Suburban.
Not to mention that in PA the registered Dem votes outnumber the registered GOP votes by over 400K, so you have to think much of the 950K Dem votes come from Philly and burbs.
I'm not seeing anyway to get urban/rural splits out of that website. Or indeed, county level data to enable me to compare it to the releases from the Georgia SoS.
I also think a total of 3.8 million early votes across Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Reno, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Detroit, Madison, Charlotte, Raleigh and more seems laughably low, given that close to 1.5 million will come from Atlanta, and there are 5 million people in the Phoenix metropolitan area alone.
I think someone has linked to Target Smart and just made up some numbers.
BTW, the Nevada data looks surprisingly good for the Dems on those numbers: suburban + urban is 900k vs 135k for rural. (And rural is down about 25%, while suburban is only down 15%.)
There are some interesting variantions. I'd say North Carolina looks good for Trump.
I'm not seeing anyway to get urban/rural splits out of that website. Or indeed, county level data to enable me to compare it to the releases from the Georgia SoS.
I also think a total of 3.8 million early votes across Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Reno, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Detroit, Madison, Charlotte, Raleigh and more seems laughably low, given that close to 1.5 million will come from Atlanta, and there are 5 million people in the Phoenix metropolitan area alone.
I think someone has linked to Target Smart and just made up some numbers.
Looking at Georgia (below), gives somewhat more plausible numbers:
Albeit it is worth remembering that Georgia is at 55% turnout already, not the 47% listed. So I'm not sure where TargetSmart gets its numbers from.
It's also pretty misleading to just compare Urban with Rural and miss out Suburban.
For me, the big number in Georgia is gender.
Women 56%
Men 43.8%
Non-binary 0.2%
With 55.6% turnout.
Unless those lines today are solidly male, Harris has Georgia. And its not even close. 12.2% gender difference in early voting. That is the number to look at. Woman are voting massively more than men. And that isn't great news for the pussy-grabber in chief.
If you think about it, that means that 28% more women have voted than men. That's an insane gap.
Now, of course, if those voters are all conservative rural women, it *might* be different. But the gender gap between Democrats and Republicans is - in general - enormous.
That's the election, right there.
"The final ABC News/Ipsos poll before Election Day, released on Sunday, found the gender gap among all likely voters to be 16 points. Harris had a 11-point advantage among women, 53% to 42%, while Trump had a 5-point advantage among men, 50% to 45%."
I'm not seeing anyway to get urban/rural splits out of that website. Or indeed, county level data to enable me to compare it to the releases from the Georgia SoS.
I also think a total of 3.8 million early votes across Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Reno, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Detroit, Madison, Charlotte, Raleigh and more seems laughably low, given that close to 1.5 million will come from Atlanta, and there are 5 million people in the Phoenix metropolitan area alone.
I think someone has linked to Target Smart and just made up some numbers.
I'm not seeing anyway to get urban/rural splits out of that website. Or indeed, county level data to enable me to compare it to the releases from the Georgia SoS.
I also think a total of 3.8 million early votes across Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Reno, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Detroit, Madison, Charlotte, Raleigh and more seems laughably low, given that close to 1.5 million will come from Atlanta, and there are 5 million people in the Phoenix metropolitan area alone.
I think someone has linked to Target Smart and just made up some numbers.
Looking at Georgia (below), gives somewhat more plausible numbers:
Albeit it is worth remembering that Georgia is at 55% turnout already, not the 47% listed. So I'm not sure where TargetSmart gets its numbers from.
It's also pretty misleading to just compare Urban with Rural and miss out Suburban.
For me, the big number in Georgia is gender.
Women 56%
Men 43.8%
Non-binary 0.2%
With 55.6% turnout.
Unless those lines today are solidly male, Harris has Georgia. And its not even close. 12.2% gender difference in early voting. That is the number to look at. Woman are voting massively more than men. And that isn't great news for the pussy-grabber in chief.
I'd caution against the assumption that women are automatically going to win this for Harris. I hate to say it, but we've been here before. The Republicans are running extremely hard on anti-trans ads aimed at women, with talking heads saying "I don't want men in my daughter's changing rooms".
I'm not saying it's going to work - it could just be the best they've got to try and peel some women away - but I've been disappointed in the past (c.f. 2016 and 2020 where Trump won white women)
I'm not seeing anyway to get urban/rural splits out of that website. Or indeed, county level data to enable me to compare it to the releases from the Georgia SoS.
I also think a total of 3.8 million early votes across Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Reno, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Detroit, Madison, Charlotte, Raleigh and more seems laughably low, given that close to 1.5 million will come from Atlanta, and there are 5 million people in the Phoenix metropolitan area alone.
I think someone has linked to Target Smart and just made up some numbers.
Looking at Georgia (below), gives somewhat more plausible numbers:
Albeit it is worth remembering that Georgia is at 55% turnout already, not the 47% listed. So I'm not sure where TargetSmart gets its numbers from.
It's also pretty misleading to just compare Urban with Rural and miss out Suburban.
For me, the big number in Georgia is gender.
Women 56%
Men 43.8%
Non-binary 0.2%
With 55.6% turnout.
Unless those lines today are solidly male, Harris has Georgia. And its not even close. 12.2% gender difference in early voting. That is the number to look at. Woman are voting massively more than men. And that isn't great news for the pussy-grabber in chief.
I'd caution against the assumption that women are automatically going to win this for Harris. I hate to say it, but we've been here before. The Republicans are running extremely hard on anti-trans ads aimed at women, with talking heads saying "I don't want men in my daughter's changing rooms".
I'm not saying it's going to work - it could just be the best they've got to try and peel some women away - but I've been disappointed in the past (c.f. 2016 and 2020 where Trump won white women)
To further expand on this - if early voting rural women skew white, this is likely not good for Harris.
I'm not seeing anyway to get urban/rural splits out of that website. Or indeed, county level data to enable me to compare it to the releases from the Georgia SoS.
I also think a total of 3.8 million early votes across Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Reno, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Detroit, Madison, Charlotte, Raleigh and more seems laughably low, given that close to 1.5 million will come from Atlanta, and there are 5 million people in the Phoenix metropolitan area alone.
I think someone has linked to Target Smart and just made up some numbers.
Looking at Georgia (below), gives somewhat more plausible numbers:
Albeit it is worth remembering that Georgia is at 55% turnout already, not the 47% listed. So I'm not sure where TargetSmart gets its numbers from.
It's also pretty misleading to just compare Urban with Rural and miss out Suburban.
For me, the big number in Georgia is gender.
Women 56%
Men 43.8%
Non-binary 0.2%
With 55.6% turnout.
Unless those lines today are solidly male, Harris has Georgia. And its not even close. 12.2% gender difference in early voting. That is the number to look at. Woman are voting massively more than men. And that isn't great news for the pussy-grabber in chief.
I'd caution against the assumption that women are automatically going to win this for Harris. I hate to say it, but we've been here before. The Republicans are running extremely hard on anti-trans ads aimed at women, with talking heads saying "I don't want men in my daughter's changing rooms".
I'm not saying it's going to work - it could just be the best they've got to try and peel some women away - but I've been disappointed in the past (c.f. 2016 and 2020 where Trump won white women)
Women vote to the left of men almost everywhere, though.
I'm not seeing anyway to get urban/rural splits out of that website. Or indeed, county level data to enable me to compare it to the releases from the Georgia SoS.
I also think a total of 3.8 million early votes across Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Reno, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Detroit, Madison, Charlotte, Raleigh and more seems laughably low, given that close to 1.5 million will come from Atlanta, and there are 5 million people in the Phoenix metropolitan area alone.
I think someone has linked to Target Smart and just made up some numbers.
Looking at Georgia (below), gives somewhat more plausible numbers:
Albeit it is worth remembering that Georgia is at 55% turnout already, not the 47% listed. So I'm not sure where TargetSmart gets its numbers from.
It's also pretty misleading to just compare Urban with Rural and miss out Suburban.
For me, the big number in Georgia is gender.
Women 56%
Men 43.8%
Non-binary 0.2%
With 55.6% turnout.
Unless those lines today are solidly male, Harris has Georgia. And its not even close. 12.2% gender difference in early voting. That is the number to look at. Woman are voting massively more than men. And that isn't great news for the pussy-grabber in chief.
I'd caution against the assumption that women are automatically going to win this for Harris. I hate to say it, but we've been here before. The Republicans are running extremely hard on anti-trans ads aimed at women, with talking heads saying "I don't want men in my daughter's changing rooms".
I'm not saying it's going to work - it could just be the best they've got to try and peel some women away - but I've been disappointed in the past (c.f. 2016 and 2020 where Trump won white women)
That may be an issue in New Hampshire (as I pointed out), but I don't see it being a priority over abortion. I think the main drivers are abortion, immigration and inflation, with trans some way behind. I really wish I'd done that article...
I'm not seeing anyway to get urban/rural splits out of that website. Or indeed, county level data to enable me to compare it to the releases from the Georgia SoS.
I also think a total of 3.8 million early votes across Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Reno, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Detroit, Madison, Charlotte, Raleigh and more seems laughably low, given that close to 1.5 million will come from Atlanta, and there are 5 million people in the Phoenix metropolitan area alone.
I think someone has linked to Target Smart and just made up some numbers.
Looking at Georgia (below), gives somewhat more plausible numbers:
Albeit it is worth remembering that Georgia is at 55% turnout already, not the 47% listed. So I'm not sure where TargetSmart gets its numbers from.
It's also pretty misleading to just compare Urban with Rural and miss out Suburban.
For me, the big number in Georgia is gender.
Women 56%
Men 43.8%
Non-binary 0.2%
With 55.6% turnout.
Unless those lines today are solidly male, Harris has Georgia. And its not even close. 12.2% gender difference in early voting. That is the number to look at. Woman are voting massively more than men. And that isn't great news for the pussy-grabber in chief.
I'd caution against the assumption that women are automatically going to win this for Harris. I hate to say it, but we've been here before. The Republicans are running extremely hard on anti-trans ads aimed at women, with talking heads saying "I don't want men in my daughter's changing rooms".
I'm not saying it's going to work - it could just be the best they've got to try and peel some women away - but I've been disappointed in the past (c.f. 2016 and 2020 where Trump won white women)
Women vote to the left of men almost everywhere, though.
Has "ours to lose" changed meaning or some such. I mean if Starmer had come out with this prior to the GE it'd generally have been seen as being almost overconfident
I'm not seeing anyway to get urban/rural splits out of that website. Or indeed, county level data to enable me to compare it to the releases from the Georgia SoS.
I also think a total of 3.8 million early votes across Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Reno, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Detroit, Madison, Charlotte, Raleigh and more seems laughably low, given that close to 1.5 million will come from Atlanta, and there are 5 million people in the Phoenix metropolitan area alone.
I think someone has linked to Target Smart and just made up some numbers.
Looking at Georgia (below), gives somewhat more plausible numbers:
Albeit it is worth remembering that Georgia is at 55% turnout already, not the 47% listed. So I'm not sure where TargetSmart gets its numbers from.
It's also pretty misleading to just compare Urban with Rural and miss out Suburban.
For me, the big number in Georgia is gender.
Women 56%
Men 43.8%
Non-binary 0.2%
With 55.6% turnout.
Unless those lines today are solidly male, Harris has Georgia. And its not even close. 12.2% gender difference in early voting. That is the number to look at. Woman are voting massively more than men. And that isn't great news for the pussy-grabber in chief.
I'd caution against the assumption that women are automatically going to win this for Harris. I hate to say it, but we've been here before. The Republicans are running extremely hard on anti-trans ads aimed at women, with talking heads saying "I don't want men in my daughter's changing rooms".
I'm not saying it's going to work - it could just be the best they've got to try and peel some women away - but I've been disappointed in the past (c.f. 2016 and 2020 where Trump won white women)
Women vote to the left of men almost everywhere, though.
Of course in the UK women used to be more Tory than men until about 1992, whereas that hasn't been true in the USA for much longer (if at all). There was a sort of "working-class housewife" effect going on, where the wife of a factory worker in somewhere like Birmingham Yardley would be quite likely to vote Tory even though her husband would never dream of doing so. It's almost totally disappeared now with the demise of that type of family arrangement.
OK, to summarise: urban are not turning out in the swing states. But of those that are turning out, they are predominately women. If those women prioritise immigration and inflation, they will win it for Trump. If those women prioritise abortion, they will win it for Kamela.
I have run the numbers. I have downloaded the 2024 turnout data at a county level, and applied the same weighting of Dem v Republican as occurred in every single county.
And it's good news (just) for Trump: assuming no difference from gender voting patterns* he wins 50.4 to 49.6 according to where the votes have been cast so far.
I'm not seeing anyway to get urban/rural splits out of that website. Or indeed, county level data to enable me to compare it to the releases from the Georgia SoS.
I also think a total of 3.8 million early votes across Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Reno, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Detroit, Madison, Charlotte, Raleigh and more seems laughably low, given that close to 1.5 million will come from Atlanta, and there are 5 million people in the Phoenix metropolitan area alone.
I think someone has linked to Target Smart and just made up some numbers.
Looking at Georgia (below), gives somewhat more plausible numbers:
Albeit it is worth remembering that Georgia is at 55% turnout already, not the 47% listed. So I'm not sure where TargetSmart gets its numbers from.
It's also pretty misleading to just compare Urban with Rural and miss out Suburban.
For me, the big number in Georgia is gender.
Women 56%
Men 43.8%
Non-binary 0.2%
With 55.6% turnout.
Unless those lines today are solidly male, Harris has Georgia. And its not even close. 12.2% gender difference in early voting. That is the number to look at. Woman are voting massively more than men. And that isn't great news for the pussy-grabber in chief.
I'd caution against the assumption that women are automatically going to win this for Harris. I hate to say it, but we've been here before. The Republicans are running extremely hard on anti-trans ads aimed at women, with talking heads saying "I don't want men in my daughter's changing rooms".
I'm not saying it's going to work - it could just be the best they've got to try and peel some women away - but I've been disappointed in the past (c.f. 2016 and 2020 where Trump won white women)
Women vote to the left of men almost everywhere, though.
Black women certainly do...98% for Biden!
But Trump won white women both times before.
Sure.
But white men went for Trump massively more than white women.
The point is that in almost every demographic, women vote to the left of men. Therefore if somewhere that is knife edge (like Georgia) has significantly more women voting than men, you have to take it into account.
OK, to summarise: urban are not turning out in the swing states. But of those that are turning out, they are predominately women. If those women prioritise immigration and inflation, they will win it for Trump. If those women prioritise abortion, they will win it for Kamela.
Any ideas, gang?
Every single poll we've had suggests that women will vote to the left of men again in 2024 - and my guess is that it will be by at least 10%, and maybe more like 15%.
OK, to summarise: urban are not turning out in the swing states. But of those that are turning out, they are predominately women. If those women prioritise immigration and inflation, they will win it for Trump. If those women prioritise abortion, they will win it for Kamela.
Any ideas, gang?
Except Nevada. In Nevada, it's the urban and suburban areas that are turning out, while rural is not.
Which is the exact opposite of what we'd expect given data on voting by party registration.
I have to go to bed folks: it's 3:31am, I've just finished work and I have a dental appt in the morning.
(@rcs1000, can you do me a favour? Can you please do that analysis for Virginia so I can find out how much shit I'm in?)
VA always has the GOP ahead (Considerably) early, the more urban eastern bit is sloooow. I've seen the tick go up for the blue team whilst they're still behind there lol
If we are seeing a surge in women voting, which I believe we are from the data from those states that report gender splits in early voting, there is only one issue which is powering that surge: abortion. Sure, women worry about the economy and inflation, and some/a few worry about transgender issues. But these are not issues which are driving new women voters to the ballot box. Only abortion is doing that.
Just spoke to a Democrat consultant friend on the ground in a swing state who told me I could repeat some of what we discussed. Here's what I can tell you; take it with a grain of salt if you like but I think he's being straight with me.
Nobody really thinks Kamala is going to win at this point. Canvassing is going poorly almost everywhere, with few exceptions. The party is getting their high-follower influencer accounts to push out motivational stories just to keep morale up and get them over the finish line with some dignity, but it's not great. The Iowa poll was good to give a shot of adrenaline to volunteers, but nobody important believes those numbers are real.
Of all the swing states, they're hoping Michigan comes through and possibly a late-night miracle in PA, but nobody is counting on either of them. They don't think Trump is actually going to flip VA or NH, but the fact that they've even entered the conversation is indicative of how bad things could potentially turn out.
The early vote counts are just beyond what they expected to see for Republican turnout, and has Dem strategists rethinking whether it was a good idea to make such a big push to broaden early voting in the first place. Republican low-propensity voters are activated in a way nobody really expected and the polls didn't capture it. Yes it's possible those early Republicans broke Democrat in an unprecedented way, but very unlikely.
The campaign has switched entirely to 'woman vs. man' messaging, as liberal white women are the only reliable voter bloc they can even identify at this point.
Priority now is saving some downballot races and flipping the house so the night isn't a total embarrassment for Democrats.
Like I said, take this all with a grain of salt as this is secondhand information, but this is what I was told, and I think it tracks with other things we know.
Guys, I love you all to bits but this sounds plausible and matches Nevada. Can somebody provide rebuttal that doesn't revolve around her characteristics?
That it seems to suggest the Democrats have no chance, and know it, in every swing state (merely 'hoping' they win Michigan).
The possibility of one side or the other sweeping all the swing states has been raised as possible, but the idea that it is a well know fact among Democrat consultants such that no one genuinely thinks they can win any of them does not strike me as very plausible. Even if it happens I don't buy that 'nobody' thinks they might win even a single one.
I discount nothing, but the presented story is not very plausible in itself - notably I responded with no knowledge of who the person was and judged it on its own merits, accepting the possibility it was right.
This is it. It has a confidence that just isn't plausible and doesn't chime with almost everything else we're hearing. Which is that it's either incredibly close or there are reasons for both sides to believe things are favouring them that polling isn't showing up.
It might turn out to correlate with the actual result. But it's useless as a predictive data point as it contradicts everything else we know - even from those predicting a Trump win, who admit things are close but believe he will get over the line. And it comes from a source we have every reason to believe is untrustworthy.
I'd also add that of the Dems were really in such a deep hole they were despairingly giving up, we'd be hearing it from far more reliable sources given party grandees aren't exactly reticent about crititicising those in rival factions.
Never mind Dem grandees, surely we'd be hearing from the myriad Labour activists out there.
Google's automatic AI information is making mistakes.
I typed "Maryland 2016 population". It answered: "The population of Maryland in 2016 was 616,958 in the city of Baltimore."
That figure certainly isn't the population of Maryland in 2016, and looks more like the figure for Baltimore itself.
The difference with you and the AI true believers is that you are capable of using your own judgement as a check and balance on the drivel it chucks out daily.
I used Google's AI and similar competitors like Perplexity to run a search on myself. It was startlingly inaccurate about almost everything. Full gell-mann amnesia in effect for those who still trust it.
I have otherwise rational and wisely sceptical friends who seem to treat LLM output as fact. As you say, it’s riddled with errors. The reason why is simple: it’s source material, the internet, is also riddled with errors.
See the reddit campaign to make Angus Steakhouse's steak sandwich the best meal in London.
I have run the numbers. I have downloaded the 2024 turnout data at a county level, and applied the same weighting of Dem v Republican as occurred in every single county.
And it's good news (just) for Trump: assuming no difference from gender voting patterns* he wins 50.4 to 49.6 according to where the votes have been cast so far.
* Which is a big caveat
Shit, hang on, had 16% not 11% split for women. Let me recalculate - but it will be something like a 150,000 firewall for the Dems!
I have to go to bed folks: it's 3:31am, I've just finished work and I have a dental appt in the morning.
(@rcs1000, can you do me a favour? Can you please do that analysis for Virginia so I can find out how much shit I'm in?)
VA always has the GOP ahead (Considerably) early, the more urban eastern bit is sloooow. I've seen the tick go up for the blue team whilst they're still behind there lol
Yep. The western rural areas tend to report first, then Tidewater (Norfolk, Portsmouth, Newport News, Hampton Roads, Virginia Beach), and then, way after the rest, NoVa reports. No idea why it takes so long.
The polls show a small swing to Trump in Virginia and a small swing to the Dems in North Carolina. Difficult to understand why that might be, ie. that combination. Maybe the Democrats have slightly overperformed in Virginia in recent elections and this is a correction.
Ten minutes to the race that stops a nation – the Melbourne Cup.
I've had a fiver on outsider, The Map, in the unlikely hope she can bounce back from her disappointing last race. Tbh, I was too tired to check all the unfamiliar antipodean form.
The polls show a small swing to Trump in Virginia and a small swing to the Dems in North Carolina. Difficult to understand why that might be, ie. that combination. Maybe the Democrats have slightly overperformed in Virginia in recent elections and this is a correction.
For NC, immigration of college degree types into the fast-growing Research Triangle area; emigration of GOP voters from Charlotte to suburbs across the state line in SC (Fort Mill, Rock Hill)
Here are the likely votes cast already in Georgia, as best we can tell.
Using the latest ABC gender splits:
"The final ABC News/Ipsos poll before Election Day, released on Sunday, found the gender gap among all likely voters to be 16 points. Harris had a 11-point advantage among women, 53% to 42%, while Trump had a 5-point advantage among men, 50% to 45%."
If so, Harris leads by 11% in that 56% of female votes cast
Trump leads by 5% in that 43.8% of male votes cast.
Trump said he was doing four campaign rallies yesterday, so I'd give him a pass on looking tired.
Trump and Vance have both been on three or four flights a day for weeks now. Harris and Walz not quite so many rallies but still an insane schedule.
Someone will probably do a FlightRadar24 analysis of the four planes in the next couple of days, but they’re definitely all in line for the platinum air miles card!
Ten minutes to the race that stops a nation – the Melbourne Cup.
I've had a fiver on outsider, The Map, in the unlikely hope she can bounce back from her disappointing last race. Tbh, I was too tired to check all the unfamiliar antipodean form.
Wrong outsider. Knights Choice won; 268 on Betfair!
The stars seem slowly to be aligning for Harris, as election day approaches.
A week to 10 days ago it looked like Trump had it won to me. But he's been tired, low wattage, even more incoherent to the point of almost incomprehensible and Harris has finished incredibly strongly. Now I really don't know. Has it tipped back enough? I hope so.
Yes, I would certainly have been with you there David. But - as you say - the sheer difference in body language from the two candidates is quite startling. And body language is hard to fake. Harris is glowing. Does she think she’s won?
Hmm.
Her appearance on SNL was one of the highlights of the campaign. It beamed confidence.
Trump is NOT happy about that
And Vance is calling her trash tonight
They look like sore losers at this point
It's OK for Trump and for Vance to call Harris " and those around her" trash, but it is not OK for Biden to call people surrounding Trump " trash". The one critique is unacceptable to the networks, the radio stations and the troll farm that is X, but not so much as a whimper if Republicans make the same insult.
I was fascinated by Trump's plan to put Harris in a ring with Mike Tyson. Very post apocalyptic, very Beyond Thunderdome.
As noted before, they've openly called her a prostitute. Which is a bit rich from a pair with Trump's unpleasant sexual history, and Vance's sale of himself to Thiel.
OK, to summarise: urban are not turning out in the swing states. But of those that are turning out, they are predominately women. If those women prioritise immigration and inflation, they will win it for Trump. If those women prioritise abortion, they will win it for Kamela.
Any ideas, gang?
Except Nevada. In Nevada, it's the urban and suburban areas that are turning out, while rural is not.
Which is the exact opposite of what we'd expect given data on voting by party registration.
Sorry but that's the opposite of what Ralston has.
NV turnout per Ralston:
Clark 51.8% Washoe 53.4% Rurals 59.8%
Incidentally Ralston did an update at Mon 7.25pm PT - see link:
Good blog from Patrick O'Flynn deriving some humour (about all one can derive) from Sir Twat's boats reset:
Rather comically, the Sun newspaper was briefed that Starmer will declare the border crisis a ‘national security issue’, announce a crack new team of investigators, hold talks with Giorgia Meloni and vow to end ‘gimmicks’. So that’s three gimmicks followed by a promise not to indulge in gimmicks. It would take a heart of stone not to laugh.
Today, Starmer announced a doubling of the budget of his new Border Security Command to £150 million – an unprecedented investment in gold braid and epaulettes that may at least be of some benefit to the British textiles industry.
Interestingly 2020 was 5-0 to Biden, and 2016 was Clinton 4, Trump 2, Johnson 1
A swing to Trump compared to last time, but of the six voters, four are GOP registered, so Harris can take consultation from Trump not even landing all the republicans.
Interestingly 2020 was 5-0 to Biden, and 2016 was Clinton 4, Trump 2, Johnson 1
A swing to Trump compared to last time, but of the six voters, four are GOP registered, so Harris can take consultation from Trump not even landing all the republicans.
Hasn't one of the households in Dixville Notch changed?
Comments
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/new-hampshire/
I was fascinated by Trump's plan to put Harris in a ring with Mike Tyson. Very post apocalyptic, very Beyond Thunderdome.
Perhaps it's a Camelot plot to rid the nation of hygiene -free rednecks.
What I think might be true is Trump is not best equipped as an honest broker between Putin and Zelensky.
And Nevada polls don't close until 10pm Eastern, so it will probable 1am Eastern (6am London) before we start to see results come through.
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/politics/2024/06/13/green-party-s-jill-stein-won-t-make-2024-ballot-in-new-york
https://x.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1853571107439399155
We are building the biggest and broadest coalition in American Political History. This includes record-breaking numbers of Arab and Muslim Voters in Michigan who want PEACE. They know Kamala and her warmonger Cabinet will invade the Middle East, get millions of Muslims killed, and start World War III. VOTE TRUMP, AND BRING BACK PEACE!
Nevada has the worst unemployment rate in the US though and looks to be heading for Trump. As does Georgia which has inflation running above the US average
The Republican legislature passed measures that purged people without current ID from the electoral rolls. Unfortunately, it appears they have purged a whole bunch of libertarian Republicans who weren't very good at keeping their driving licenses up to date.
Early voting 20240 vs. 2020 in swing states shows a big shift:
2024:
Rural: 6.2M
Urban: 3.8M
2020:
Rural: 6.4M
Urban: 6.2M
Target Smart
I posted the urban numbers for Atlanta, vs the rest of Georgia, and Atlanta is coming out much more than rural counties
Fuck. I don't know how to fix this.
https://sos.ga.gov/page/election-data-hub-turnout
Turnout is much higher in Atlanta than in rural areas
But we have the actual number from the Georgia Secretary of State on turnout by county. And the big urban Democratic strongholds are turning out more than the rural ones.
Now, it may be that the delta is less than in 2020. But given that Fulton/DeKalb/Cobb (i.e. Atlanta) averaging about 60% right now, that doesn't seem *very* likely.
Likewise, the overall headline numbers don't make an enormous amount of sense, given we're at around 1.5m turnout from those three counties alone. You would need to see staggering drops in other urban areas.
Midway, they just hold it for Trump - just - but lose the Senate seat.
But quite possibly, one shit-talking comic loses them both. Or two, if you count Trump.
I'm not seeing anyway to get urban/rural splits out of that website. Or indeed, county level data to enable me to compare it to the releases from the Georgia SoS.
I also think a total of 3.8 million early votes across Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Reno, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Detroit, Madison, Charlotte, Raleigh and more seems laughably low, given that close to 1.5 million have already come in from Atlanta, and there are 5 million people in the Phoenix metropolitan area alone.
I think someone has linked to Target Smart and just made up some numbers.
https://targetearly.targetsmart.com/g2024?calc_type=turnoutPercent&comparison_years=2020&comparison_years=2024&count_prefix=final_eav_voted_count_&demo_filters=[{"key":"urbanicity","value":"All"}]&vote_mode=0
Looking at Georgia (below), gives somewhat more plausible numbers:
Albeit it is worth remembering that Georgia is at 55% turnout already, not the 47% listed. So I'm not sure where TargetSmart gets its numbers from.
It's also pretty misleading to just compare Urban with Rural and miss out Suburban.
https://targetearly.targetsmart.com/g2024?calc_type=turnoutPercent&comparison_years=2020&comparison_years=2024&count_prefix=final_eav_voted_count_&demo_filters=[{"key":"urbanicity","value":"All"}]&view_type=PresBS&vote_mode=0
Women 56%
Men 43.8%
Non-binary 0.2%
With 55.6% turnout.
Unless those lines today are solidly male, Harris has Georgia. And its not even close. 12.2% gender difference in early voting. That is the number to look at. Woman are voting massively more than men. And that isn't great news for the pussy-grabber in chief.
Now, of course, if those voters are all conservative rural women, it *might* be different. But the gender gap between Democrats and Republicans is - in general - enormous.
Urbanicity 2020 2022 2024
Rural 6,409,644 (43.6%) 3,737,742 (24.1%) 6,220,346 (37.9%)
Suburban 7,996,782 (50.0%) 4,469,193 (27.8%) 6,681,045 (39.1%)
Urban 6,200,912 (49.6%) 2,936,187 (25.5%) 3,804,808 (31.2%)
Unknown 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Total 20,607,338 (47.7%) 11,143,122 (25.9%) 16,706,199 (36.6%)
Which lines up with the tweet
2024:
Rural: 6.2M
Urban: 3.8M
2020:
Rural: 6.4M
Urban: 6.2M
https://x.com/ppollingnumbers/status/1853610975594790936
"The final ABC News/Ipsos poll before Election Day, released on Sunday, found the gender gap among all likely voters to be 16 points. Harris had a 11-point advantage among women, 53% to 42%, while Trump had a 5-point advantage among men, 50% to 45%."
If so, Harris leads by 16% in that 56%
Trump leads by 5% in that 43.8%.
Not even close.
I'm not saying it's going to work - it could just be the best they've got to try and peel some women away - but I've been disappointed in the past (c.f. 2016 and 2020 where Trump won white women)
But Trump won white women both times before.
OK, to summarise: urban are not turning out in the swing states. But of those that are turning out, they are predominately women. If those women prioritise immigration and inflation, they will win it for Trump. If those women prioritise abortion, they will win it for Kamela.
Any ideas, gang?
I have run the numbers. I have downloaded the 2024 turnout data at a county level, and applied the same weighting of Dem v Republican as occurred in every single county.
And it's good news (just) for Trump: assuming no difference from gender voting patterns* he wins 50.4 to 49.6 according to where the votes have been cast so far.
* Which is a big caveat
But white men went for Trump massively more than white women.
The point is that in almost every demographic, women vote to the left of men. Therefore if somewhere that is knife edge (like Georgia) has significantly more women voting than men, you have to take it into account.
Which is the exact opposite of what we'd expect given data on voting by party registration.
(@rcs1000, can you do me a favour? Can you please do that analysis for Virginia so I can find out how much shit I'm in?)
I've had a fiver on outsider, The Map, in the unlikely hope she can bounce back from her disappointing last race. Tbh, I was too tired to check all the unfamiliar antipodean form.
Happy US Election Day everyone!
Here are the likely votes cast already in Georgia, as best we can tell.
Using the latest ABC gender splits:
"The final ABC News/Ipsos poll before Election Day, released on Sunday, found the gender gap among all likely voters to be 16 points. Harris had a 11-point advantage among women, 53% to 42%, while Trump had a 5-point advantage among men, 50% to 45%."
If so, Harris leads by 11% in that 56% of female votes cast
Trump leads by 5% in that 43.8% of male votes cast.
2.257 million women have early voted (fact)
Dem @ 55.5 = 1.252m female Democrat votes cast
Rep @ 44.5 = 1.004m Republican votes cast
1.765 million men have early voted (fact)
Dem @ 47.5 = 0.838m male Democrat votes cast
Rep @ 52.5 = 0.926m male Republican votes cast
Democrat total votes cast: 1.252 + 0.838 = 2.090 million
Republican total votes cast 1.004 + 0.926 = 1.930 million
So there is a 160,000 Dem firewall after 56% of the electorate have already early voted
Reminder: Biden won Georgia in 2020 by just 11,779 votes
Someone will probably do a FlightRadar24 analysis of the four planes in the next couple of days, but they’re definitely all in line for the platinum air miles card!
In the UK we'd do a mix of interviews, soapboxes, meet the voters and battlebus stuff across a variety of constituencies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2Wj6CCEjUk
Which is a bit rich from a pair with Trump's unpleasant sexual history, and Vance's sale of himself to Thiel.
NBC has GA early vote as 4,018,000.
Why the difference?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/early-vote
NV turnout per Ralston:
Clark 51.8%
Washoe 53.4%
Rurals 59.8%
Incidentally Ralston did an update at Mon 7.25pm PT - see link:
https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/the-early-voting-blog-2024
https://sos.ga.gov/page/election-data-hub-turnout
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpzA-9_YDyA
It wasn't obvious to me that you had to click on total turnout, the page was set to early voting.
Harris: 3
Trump: 3
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1853667022569128234
Herding ?
1,000 simulations:
Harris 504
Trump 494
No winner 2
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/05/politics/dixville-notch-new-hampshire-2024-results/index.html
Interestingly 2020 was 5-0 to Biden, and 2016 was Clinton 4, Trump 2, Johnson 1
It was also a 65+ senior male who broke ranks…
Predictive…
😇😁
Talk of her winning Florida seems like getting high on your own supply, however.