you may have grown tired of early vote analysis. the good news is that it’s over. the bad news is that we’re about to hear from its more insufferable older brother: Anecdotal Election Day Turnout Analysis
I have had one go at early vote analysis. I'm assuming 5% of registered REPs vote DEM. This is the shy woman and Haley effect. I'm also assuming that 55% of Others break for DEM. This is the young and motivation effect. I'm also assuming that the on the day voting follows a similar pattern to the early day voting. Both parties have been putting huge effort into GOTV early. The result is as follows: That is Kamala takes all swing states except Arizona and also takes IOWA.
NB. If 10% of registered REPS vote DEM and 60% of Others break for DEM, then she takes all the swing states plus Iowa, Florida and Ohio but not Texas.
I don’t believe anywhere close to 5% of Republicans will vote Harris.
Why would they? Trump may be The Golgothan, but he still delivers the things that they believe in.
Harris detests everything they believe in.
Wikipedia claims 6% Republicans voted Biden last time, and 6% Democrats voted Trump based on exit polling. Party registration must lag a lot I guess.
Now I have no idea if that is right, or what number Harris will need to get, and relying on them as your ace in the hole is probably unwise, but she has definitely made a concerted push to appeal to the 10-15% of Republicans who are not full on MAGA Trump fans. If they can get a portion of those, it will be significant.
Interesting article in the Telegraph about errors in the 2020 US census, which benefited the Democrats:
"Feed these over- and undercounts through the system used to apportion electoral college votes, and analysis from the Heritage Foundation suggests that the results look something like this: Colorado was given one elector more than it should have received, Florida received two too few, Texas one too few, while Minnesota and Rhode Island each cling on to a vote they should have lost.
Had the Census found just 26 fewer people in Minnesota, then the state would have missed out on an elector; it’s now believed that the population was overcounted by about 217,000. Similarly, Florida and Texas needed about 172,000 and 189,000 more residents respectively to each get an additional vote; they were undercounted by approximately 761,000 and 560,000 respectively.
With polling for the election on a knife-edge, it’s not hard to draw out a scenario where this is enough to sway the overall result. Texas and Florida are expected to vote Republican; Minnesota, Colorado and Rhode Island Democrat, depriving Trump of three electoral college votes while handing three to Harris."
Has to be encouraging for Harris - it's an absolutely massive swing.
That’s insane. If NH is moving that much then surely other states might be in play that have floated totally under the radar?
Could be people haven't solved the underestimating Trump's voteshare problem. Or places like Florida are in play, either one. Or its piling up in the safe areas.
Jonathan Martin @jmart perhaps the most telling sign of the last 72 hours, even the biggest Democratic worrywarts are sounding optimistic
Jonathan Martin @jmart · 6h Maybe most striking is the sense that GA or NC could be in reach. Was hard to find Dems two weeks ago who truly thought either was likely
Oh please, Trump's never seen the inside of a cell and probably never will even if he loses again (with appeals and whatnot), so who is going in these cells?
Interesting to see how John Oliver has urged people to vote Harris, as I've not watched him for awhile. He really seemed to hate Biden and so his 2020 urge was very 'we don't have any other option to beat, Trump, unfortunately'. I assumed he'd be happier with Harris then, but the video I've seen shared shows him just as reluctant and unhappy about having no other choice to beat Trump than her. It was shared as a 'brilliant take' on why he's voting Harris, but if there's very progressive people still wrestling that hard with the idea I find it far from encouraging. https://nitter.poast.org/BlueATLGeorgia/status/1853308493060518391#m
My wife, who voted for Obama in Missouri in 2008, is very cynical about Biden and Harris, and doesn't particularly see a Harris victory as a good thing.
I've been a big critic of lesser-evilism for many years, and there's a lot of things that the Democrats have done, or refused to do, that would make someone regard the Democrats as simply not good enough. My opinion of Trump is sufficiently negative that I think such views are reckless, but I do understand them.
In many ways the Democrats and Republicans operate a cartel, locking out any other political party, so a one-party state might not superficially seem that different compared to the status quo.
At 1am Wednesday morning UK time (5pm here in California), Georgia will release the complete results of all the early voting.
This early voting will probably account for at least three quarters of the total number of votes cast in the State.
If Trump is leading when these results are released, then he will win the State of Georgia, and - I think - it is highly likely that he will win North Carolina and the election.
By contrast, if Harris five points or more ahead, then I don't see how Trump wins Georgia. He would need to win by 20+ points on the day, and that's a hell of a mountain to climb.
The tipping point is probably Harris +3%. If she's ahead by more than that, she should be favorite to take Georgia. If less, then Trump should be.
I think Trump will win Georgia and NC win or lose the EC now, it is the upper Midwest and PA that will decide it
Kamala has a path to victory that doesn't include Georgia or North Carolina, which is your scenario.
Still: given there is definite correlation between the States, you would probably want to see Harris +2 or so when the early votes drop. (That is: Trump likely to win Georgia, but the margin looking very narrow.)
PB punters: if my reading of the consequences of the male/female early voting split in Georgia is correct, them the odds for the State are likely to change *very* quickly in the early hours of tomorrow morning. Even Harris +1 (which I would argue would be pretty negative for her) will likely see the Democrat price move in sharply.
Not necessarily.
Given nationally Trump has gained with Blacks but lost with white voters compared to 2020 you could even see Trump win nationally, Georgia and NC and still lose the Midwest and rustbelt swing states
It's possible, sure, but I personally will be watching the Georgia drop in... checks... just 15 hours time.
Woah, @rcs1000, are you saying Georgia is going to drop the early votes at 11am GMT on Nov 5th?
I CANT COUNT DAMNIT. I'M AN IDIOT.
It was 12pm here. In my head I though "5 hours to 5pm, and then another 10 hours to take it to the same time tomorrow."
I can teach you how to count. I’ve been counting lots of sheep, so I’ve got better at it.
Let’s start 1 to 10.
1 - 2 - 3 - 95 98 - NT - Me - 2000 - XP - Vista 7 - 8 - 10
👩🎓
I think you are missing a few.
True.
1, 2, skip a few, 99, 100
Meanwhile the elect are struggling to understand simple algebraic propositions like Sonoma + 1 = Sequoia.
Interesting article in the Telegraph about errors in the 2020 US census, which benefited the Democrats:
"Feed these over- and undercounts through the system used to apportion electoral college votes, and analysis from the Heritage Foundation suggests that the results look something like this: Colorado was given one elector more than it should have received, Florida received two too few, Texas one too few, while Minnesota and Rhode Island each cling on to a vote they should have lost.
Had the Census found just 26 fewer people in Minnesota, then the state would have missed out on an elector; it’s now believed that the population was overcounted by about 217,000. Similarly, Florida and Texas needed about 172,000 and 189,000 more residents respectively to each get an additional vote; they were undercounted by approximately 761,000 and 560,000 respectively.
With polling for the election on a knife-edge, it’s not hard to draw out a scenario where this is enough to sway the overall result. Texas and Florida are expected to vote Republican; Minnesota, Colorado and Rhode Island Democrat, depriving Trump of three electoral college votes while handing three to Harris."
Not sure the Heritage Foundation is an entirely unbiased actor.
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.
LOL. Says Vickie Paladino, MAGA Republican and frequent Fox News guest, who will tell you how the Dems are doing on the doorstep with no spin whatsoever
you may have grown tired of early vote analysis. the good news is that it’s over. the bad news is that we’re about to hear from its more insufferable older brother: Anecdotal Election Day Turnout Analysis
I have had one go at early vote analysis. I'm assuming 5% of registered REPs vote DEM. This is the shy woman and Haley effect. I'm also assuming that 55% of Others break for DEM. This is the young and motivation effect. I'm also assuming that the on the day voting follows a similar pattern to the early day voting. Both parties have been putting huge effort into GOTV early. The result is as follows: That is Kamala takes all swing states except Arizona and also takes IOWA.
NB. If 10% of registered REPS vote DEM and 60% of Others break for DEM, then she takes all the swing states plus Iowa, Florida and Ohio but not Texas.
I don’t believe anywhere close to 5% of Republicans will vote Harris.
Why would they? Trump may be The Golgothan, but he still delivers the things that they believe in.
Harris detests everything they believe in.
Biden got 6% of Republican vote in 2020. 5% is a very reasonable assumption. Some dems will go republican too though.
Oh please, Trump's never seen the inside of a cell and probably never will even if he loses again (with appeals and whatnot), so who is going in these cells?
you may have grown tired of early vote analysis. the good news is that it’s over. the bad news is that we’re about to hear from its more insufferable older brother: Anecdotal Election Day Turnout Analysis
I have had one go at early vote analysis. I'm assuming 5% of registered REPs vote DEM. This is the shy woman and Haley effect. I'm also assuming that 55% of Others break for DEM. This is the young and motivation effect. I'm also assuming that the on the day voting follows a similar pattern to the early day voting. Both parties have been putting huge effort into GOTV early. The result is as follows: That is Kamala takes all swing states except Arizona and also takes IOWA.
NB. If 10% of registered REPS vote DEM and 60% of Others break for DEM, then she takes all the swing states plus Iowa, Florida and Ohio but not Texas.
I don’t believe anywhere close to 5% of Republicans will vote Harris.
Why would they? Trump may be The Golgothan, but he still delivers the things that they believe in.
Harris detests everything they believe in.
IIRC, the polling shows that about 3% of registered Democrats are voting Trump, and about 5% of registered Republicans are going for Harris. As there are more registered Democrats than Republicans, it is almost - but not quite - a wash.
you may have grown tired of early vote analysis. the good news is that it’s over. the bad news is that we’re about to hear from its more insufferable older brother: Anecdotal Election Day Turnout Analysis
I have had one go at early vote analysis. I'm assuming 5% of registered REPs vote DEM. This is the shy woman and Haley effect. I'm also assuming that 55% of Others break for DEM. This is the young and motivation effect. I'm also assuming that the on the day voting follows a similar pattern to the early day voting. Both parties have been putting huge effort into GOTV early. The result is as follows: That is Kamala takes all swing states except Arizona and also takes IOWA.
NB. If 10% of registered REPS vote DEM and 60% of Others break for DEM, then she takes all the swing states plus Iowa, Florida and Ohio but not Texas.
I don’t believe anywhere close to 5% of Republicans will vote Harris.
Why would they? Trump may be The Golgothan, but he still delivers the things that they believe in.
Harris detests everything they believe in.
There are still considerable number of voters in various places (Appalachia, other parts of the South, rust-belt counties) who are (still) registered Democrats but are also regular Republican voters esp. federally but increasing also state & local).
ON THE FLIP SIDE there are also numbers of registered Republcans, in other areas, including most certainly in Pennsylvania, who have become disenchanted with GOP candidates, issue & etc., etc. For example, in suburban Philadelphia & Pittsburgh, but also in rural areas where locals have (and still mostly are) voting Republican since the (old) Party of Lincoln was led by Abe himself.
So 5% of reg PA GOPers > Harris/Walz does NOT seem (to me) to be beyond the bounds of plausibility.
Interesting to see how John Oliver has urged people to vote Harris, as I've not watched him for awhile. He really seemed to hate Biden and so his 2020 urge was very 'we don't have any other option to beat, Trump, unfortunately'. I assumed he'd be happier with Harris then, but the video I've seen shared shows him just as reluctant and unhappy about having no other choice to beat Trump than her. It was shared as a 'brilliant take' on why he's voting Harris, but if there's very progressive people still wrestling that hard with the idea I find it far from encouraging. https://nitter.poast.org/BlueATLGeorgia/status/1853308493060518391#m
My wife, who voted for Obama in Missouri in 2008, is very cynical about Biden and Harris, and doesn't particularly see a Harris victory as a good thing.
I've been a big critic of lesser-evilism for many years, and there's a lot of things that the Democrats have done, or refused to do, that would make someone regard the Democrats as simply not good enough. My opinion of Trump is sufficiently negative that I think such views are reckless, but I do understand them.
In many ways the Democrats and Republicans operate a cartel, locking out any other political party, so a one-party state might not superficially seem that different compared to the status quo.
It’s the electoral system that does that. Like here too.
Interesting to see how John Oliver has urged people to vote Harris, as I've not watched him for awhile. He really seemed to hate Biden and so his 2020 urge was very 'we don't have any other option to beat, Trump, unfortunately'. I assumed he'd be happier with Harris then, but the video I've seen shared shows him just as reluctant and unhappy about having no other choice to beat Trump than her. It was shared as a 'brilliant take' on why he's voting Harris, but if there's very progressive people still wrestling that hard with the idea I find it far from encouraging. https://nitter.poast.org/BlueATLGeorgia/status/1853308493060518391#m
My wife, who voted for Obama in Missouri in 2008, is very cynical about Biden and Harris, and doesn't particularly see a Harris victory as a good thing.
I've been a big critic of lesser-evilism for many years, and there's a lot of things that the Democrats have done, or refused to do, that would make someone regard the Democrats as simply not good enough. My opinion of Trump is sufficiently negative that I think such views are reckless, but I do understand them.
In many ways the Democrats and Republicans operate a cartel, locking out any other political party, so a one-party state might not superficially seem that different compared to the status quo.
I had a look at the Libertarians and Greens the other day. Neither looks like they want to compromise with the electorate at all.
New Hampshire Dartmouth poll could of course be wrong - but even at very outer limits it implies move to Harris and it also gives a bit more credence to Iowa Selzer and the Kansas poll.
It gives credence to the idea that Harris outperforming in very white States, suggesting that Wisconsin might be safer for her than the odds suggest.
In 2020 I was up all night, with a takeaway delivered at 1am. Good News - have just found a local* takeaway that will deliver at 1am. So maybe that's the plan. Fuel. Then the beautiful combination of caffeine and cake on Wednesday until I crash to bed early.
Work doesn't look too bad Wednesday. And then Thursday I start delivering my "its polling day" leaflet at 7am.
*local. Fraserburgh! 11 miles.
If you are ever going to stay up all night to follow the results of an election then this has to be the one. I honestly believe that is the most important election of my lifetime. America, and thus the West, is at a crossroads. If Trump is re-elected I believe we will be on a very different path than if Harris wins.
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.
She’s a republican who was removed from the mental health committee for being homophobic.
How many Democratic consultants do you think would share that insight with her?
"Not a single Democrat I speak with believes that Vice President Kamala Harris will win on Tuesday."
One of the points I have made for a while now and which has never really been discussed, is that there are a lot of high profile Democrat names - Shapiro, Whitmer, Newsom et al - who have a lot to lose from a Harris win as it would mean they effectively couldn't stand for a Presidential run in 2028. However, if Harris is defeated, not only does that obstacle go away but they can effectively start their campaigns from next week/
Sure, but that's true of every ambitious politician of every party each electoral cycle.
Political leaders had better be good at radiating confidence or they are in the wrong job!
We're getting close enough to the election that normies start to obsess about it the same way that we do all the time and the market supplies a flood of shit-that-doesn't-mean-anything for them to consume.
Oh please, Trump's never seen the inside of a cell and probably never will even if he loses again (with appeals and whatnot), so who is going in these cells?
you may have grown tired of early vote analysis. the good news is that it’s over. the bad news is that we’re about to hear from its more insufferable older brother: Anecdotal Election Day Turnout Analysis
I have had one go at early vote analysis. I'm assuming 5% of registered REPs vote DEM. This is the shy woman and Haley effect. I'm also assuming that 55% of Others break for DEM. This is the young and motivation effect. I'm also assuming that the on the day voting follows a similar pattern to the early day voting. Both parties have been putting huge effort into GOTV early. The result is as follows: That is Kamala takes all swing states except Arizona and also takes IOWA.
NB. If 10% of registered REPS vote DEM and 60% of Others break for DEM, then she takes all the swing states plus Iowa, Florida and Ohio but not Texas.
I don’t believe anywhere close to 5% of Republicans will vote Harris.
Why would they? Trump may be The Golgothan, but he still delivers the things that they believe in.
Harris detests everything they believe in.
There are still considerable number of voters in various places (Appalachia, other parts of the South, rust-belt counties) who are (still) registered Democrats but are also regular Republican voters esp. federally but increasing also state & local).
ON THE FLIP SIDE there are also numbers of registered Republcans, in other areas, including most certainly in Pennsylvania, who have become disenchanted with GOP candidates, issue & etc., etc. For example, in suburban Philadelphia & Pittsburgh, but also in rural areas where locals have (and still mostly are) voting Republican since the (old) Party of Lincoln was led by Abe himself.
So 5% of reg PA GOPers > Harris/Walz does NOT seem (to me) to be beyond the bounds of plausibility.
Yes, but it’s not a *net* figure.
If I understand @Barnesian right, it’s one way traffic.
Political leaders had better be good at radiating confidence or they are in the wrong job!
We're getting close enough to the election that normies start to obsess about it the same way that we do all the time and the market supplies a flood of shit-that-doesn't-mean-anything for them to consume.
Pah, election normies are the worst. Do they even regularly talk about swingback? I don't even want to know.
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.
She’s a republican who was removed from the mental health committee for being homophobic.
How many Democratic consultants do you think would share that insight with her?
"Not a single Democrat I speak with believes that Vice President Kamala Harris will win on Tuesday."
One of the points I have made for a while now and which has never really been discussed, is that there are a lot of high profile Democrat names - Shapiro, Whitmer, Newsom et al - who have a lot to lose from a Harris win as it would mean they effectively couldn't stand for a Presidential run in 2028. However, if Harris is defeated, not only does that obstacle go away but they can effectively start their campaigns from next week/
Sure, but that's true of every ambitious politician of every party each electoral cycle.
Not a single … implies one of two things: the person has an agenda, or doesn’t really talk to a lot of people.
3 options for tomorrow: Go to bed early and get up at maybe 4am Stay up late and go to bed in the early hours hoping there is a landslide Don't go to bed at all and be a zombie Wednesday afternoon
The latter option is daft. Thoughts?
You need to be online between 12am and 1am when FL and GA results start hitting the tapes.
Thanks. Which websites and tv channels should we watch,? I would like to get everything planned as I have a lot riding on this and a young family.
Politicalbetting would be my recommendation.
CNN & Fox will be my go-to's - try to watch US & not UK coverage if you can imho.
Despite their normal political bias, Fox’s election night coverage rivals that of CNN. I’d recommend watching either or both, choose a site like NY Times to get details number results, and have the conversation here on PB
Would agree with FOX ENight, have zero clue re: CNN because don't have cable and they don't broadcast.
When it comes to election-night broadcasts, miss the days of my misspent youth, when we'd flip the dial between CBS (Walter Chronkite), NBC (Huntley/Brinkley then John Chancellor) and ABC (Harry Reasoner/Howard K. Smith.
Here's a sample featuring Uncle Walter from ENight 1968; begins with start of national broadcast with 2% of votes reporting:
Keir Starmer wants to restore pre-Brexit security arrangements with the EU to allow Britain to take charge of cross-border criminal operations in Europe:
You have to admire people who set up a YouTube channel and eventually manage to get their fans to pay for their first-class plane travel and luxury hotels as they continue to make videos of their travels all over the world.
There are a few Taylor Swift fans who have managed to create a career out of listening to her music and attending her shows.
Nice work if you can get it...
Sounds like horrific work.
Could be worse. Imagine if Radiohead were still touring…
In Chipping Norton, right on the main street, is a building that was for a long time a school, but then became a recording studio. All sorts of really unlikely and famous artists recorded there
And so did Radiohead apparently
And now the building is a fucking dentists !!!
Stopping any more Radiohead albums, one studio at a time...
There's a joke in there somewhere about dentist's drills and Radiohead difficult fifth LP.
Political leaders had better be good at radiating confidence or they are in the wrong job!
We're getting close enough to the election that normies start to obsess about it the same way that we do all the time and the market supplies a flood of shit-that-doesn't-mean-anything for them to consume.
Pah, election normies are the worst. Do they even regularly talk about swingback? I don't even want to know.
How's about robust discussion of Portland OR first-ever RCV election for mayor and (new) city council?
Political leaders had better be good at radiating confidence or they are in the wrong job!
We're getting close enough to the election that normies start to obsess about it the same way that we do all the time and the market supplies a flood of shit-that-doesn't-mean-anything for them to consume.
Pah, election normies are the worst. Do they even regularly talk about swingback? I don't even want to know.
How's about robust discussion of Portland OR first-ever RCV election for mayor and (new) city council?
Turnout went up by 22 million between 2016 and 2020 from 136 to 158 million. Is it unlikely that sort of increase will happen again?
I would say not. Trump is so incredibly polarising that it drives both sides to exceptional turnouts. I may have found the single way in which he is good for democracy. Gosh.
you may have grown tired of early vote analysis. the good news is that it’s over. the bad news is that we’re about to hear from its more insufferable older brother: Anecdotal Election Day Turnout Analysis
I have had one go at early vote analysis. I'm assuming 5% of registered REPs vote DEM. This is the shy woman and Haley effect. I'm also assuming that 55% of Others break for DEM. This is the young and motivation effect. I'm also assuming that the on the day voting follows a similar pattern to the early day voting. Both parties have been putting huge effort into GOTV early. The result is as follows: That is Kamala takes all swing states except Arizona and also takes IOWA.
NB. If 10% of registered REPS vote DEM and 60% of Others break for DEM, then she takes all the swing states plus Iowa, Florida and Ohio but not Texas.
I don’t believe anywhere close to 5% of Republicans will vote Harris.
Why would they? Trump may be The Golgothan, but he still delivers the things that they believe in.
Harris detests everything they believe in.
There are still considerable number of voters in various places (Appalachia, other parts of the South, rust-belt counties) who are (still) registered Democrats but are also regular Republican voters esp. federally but increasing also state & local).
ON THE FLIP SIDE there are also numbers of registered Republcans, in other areas, including most certainly in Pennsylvania, who have become disenchanted with GOP candidates, issue & etc., etc. For example, in suburban Philadelphia & Pittsburgh, but also in rural areas where locals have (and still mostly are) voting Republican since the (old) Party of Lincoln was led by Abe himself.
So 5% of reg PA GOPers > Harris/Walz does NOT seem (to me) to be beyond the bounds of plausibility.
Yes, but it’s not a *net* figure.
If I understand @Barnesian right, it’s one way traffic.
Whether or not you understand B, I sure am not understanding you, or at least think not.
IF (hypothetically) 5% of registered Republicans in the great Keystone State vote for Harris, then (hypothetically) 5% (or whatever) of reg Dems might be voting for Trump.
You have to admire people who set up a YouTube channel and eventually manage to get their fans to pay for their first-class plane travel and luxury hotels as they continue to make videos of their travels all over the world.
There are a few Taylor Swift fans who have managed to create a career out of listening to her music and attending her shows.
Nice work if you can get it...
Sounds like horrific work.
Could be worse. Imagine if Radiohead were still touring…
In Chipping Norton, right on the main street, is a building that was for a long time a school, but then became a recording studio. All sorts of really unlikely and famous artists recorded there
And so did Radiohead apparently
And now the building is a fucking dentists !!!
Stopping any more Radiohead albums, one studio at a time...
There's a joke in there somewhere about dentist's drills and Radiohead difficult fifth LP.
Political leaders had better be good at radiating confidence or they are in the wrong job!
We're getting close enough to the election that normies start to obsess about it the same way that we do all the time and the market supplies a flood of shit-that-doesn't-mean-anything for them to consume.
Pah, election normies are the worst. Do they even regularly talk about swingback? I don't even want to know.
Imagine having Normies involved in a Guess Boris’ Weight competition. That would be an embarrassing spectacle. One shudders at the thought.
Dartmouth and Seltzer are overcounting Democrats, because they aren't using past vote weighting and are struggling to reach certain kinds of voter. NYTimes/Siena has a similar issue, but has attempted to correct for it.
On the other hand, most other pollsters have shifted to past vote weighting. Given how unpopular Biden is, this means fewer people will have reported actually voting for him than did. This - and this is Nate Cohn's view - could lead to Democrat voters being undercounted.
you may have grown tired of early vote analysis. the good news is that it’s over. the bad news is that we’re about to hear from its more insufferable older brother: Anecdotal Election Day Turnout Analysis
I have had one go at early vote analysis. I'm assuming 5% of registered REPs vote DEM. This is the shy woman and Haley effect. I'm also assuming that 55% of Others break for DEM. This is the young and motivation effect. I'm also assuming that the on the day voting follows a similar pattern to the early day voting. Both parties have been putting huge effort into GOTV early. The result is as follows: That is Kamala takes all swing states except Arizona and also takes IOWA.
NB. If 10% of registered REPS vote DEM and 60% of Others break for DEM, then she takes all the swing states plus Iowa, Florida and Ohio but not Texas.
I don’t believe anywhere close to 5% of Republicans will vote Harris.
Why would they? Trump may be The Golgothan, but he still delivers the things that they believe in.
Harris detests everything they believe in.
You don’t really believe that do you?
For one thing as a party leader, Trump is a loser. He is not popular in America - his leadership has got the the Republicans stuck below a low glass ceiling that’s got Trump written on it. This change election will be a bonus win for the Dems - the only country in the world who didn’t vote out its government after cost of living crisis, and it’s solely down to how poorly Trump has campaigned in recent weeks - boorish, off message, and making threat to democracy a voter concern. He has dropped the ball on the economy in recent weeks.
Secondly, when he won, it’s such a shambolic administration it doesn’t deliver. What are you pointing to as great delivery last time? Managing legal and illegal immigration? Nope. Managing Covid? Nope? Afghanistan? Nope. Managing the economy? Nope. Dodgy judges, tax cuts for the rich, and over turning roe v Wade? Yes to that legacy. You are telling us every single one of the GOP tribes wanted the overturning of Roe v Wade, and some of the restrictive abortion laws now out there?
Times up for Trump. It’s not the dems beating him as we speak - it’s the party he stole taking ownership and control of their future back. They are out there now, snorkelling.
you may have grown tired of early vote analysis. the good news is that it’s over. the bad news is that we’re about to hear from its more insufferable older brother: Anecdotal Election Day Turnout Analysis
I have had one go at early vote analysis. I'm assuming 5% of registered REPs vote DEM. This is the shy woman and Haley effect. I'm also assuming that 55% of Others break for DEM. This is the young and motivation effect. I'm also assuming that the on the day voting follows a similar pattern to the early day voting. Both parties have been putting huge effort into GOTV early. The result is as follows: That is Kamala takes all swing states except Arizona and also takes IOWA.
NB. If 10% of registered REPS vote DEM and 60% of Others break for DEM, then she takes all the swing states plus Iowa, Florida and Ohio but not Texas.
I don’t believe anywhere close to 5% of Republicans will vote Harris.
Why would they? Trump may be The Golgothan, but he still delivers the things that they believe in.
Harris detests everything they believe in.
Don't know if it'll be 5%, that or higher but counteracted by Dem switchers. But it's fairly well established that there's a certain type of old school Republican - particularly women - who'd vote GOP in most circumstances but loathe and fear Trump 2. In a way they didn't Trump 1 because then they thought he could be controlled and things like removing Roe v Wade and Jan 6th were scaremongering. They may not be keen on Harris either, but she has been quite clever in offering them a seat at the table. Whether that is enough I'll guess we'll see.
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?
Friendly reminder that from now until Wednesday, we are living in the metaphorical equivalent of an airport lounge. Calories don't count. Money doesn't matter. No one will judge you for having a beer at 10am.
Does anyone else on here think this is the most important election of their lifetime?
not really
What would you say was?
errrm - brexit probably . Trump is not exactly an unknown quantity - His first term was actually pretty steady for the world (as a non american I dont really care about internal US stuff) only world stuff- If anything he may be more stable for the world given he did not enter any wars in his first term (very unusual for a US president)
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?
Why does it need rebuttal?
It's from a Republican Congresswoman. Is it likely that she has a Democrat consultant friend who told her that it was OK for her to share the view that Democrats think they're doomed?
You have to admire people who set up a YouTube channel and eventually manage to get their fans to pay for their first-class plane travel and luxury hotels as they continue to make videos of their travels all over the world.
There are a few Taylor Swift fans who have managed to create a career out of listening to her music and attending her shows.
Nice work if you can get it...
Someone I know does the signing at her concerts. I'm not quite sure how that works but it seems to be a career.
You have to admire people who set up a YouTube channel and eventually manage to get their fans to pay for their first-class plane travel and luxury hotels as they continue to make videos of their travels all over the world.
There are a few Taylor Swift fans who have managed to create a career out of listening to her music and attending her shows.
Nice work if you can get it...
Someone I know does the signing at her concerts. I'm not quite sure how that works but it seems to be a career.
She doesn’t even sign her own autographs?
I assumed it was a typo of singing.
Ha, no. Signing for the deaf.
I suppose you could go to experience the atmosphere whilst not being able to hear anything, but it does seem a little odd.
Maybe not as odd as actually wanting to listen, though.
Turnout went up by 22 million between 2016 and 2020 from 136 to 158 million. Is it unlikely that sort of increase will happen again?
I would say not. Trump is so incredibly polarising that it drives both sides to exceptional turnouts. I may have found the single way in which he is good for democracy. Gosh.
Re: "exceptional turnout" well, we shall see.
Note that negative campaigning is more likely, in USA anyway, to DEPRESS turnout esp. among infrequent voters. It's more effective (when it works) at persuading folks who are frequent voters or have already decided to vote, including for reasons having little to do with POTUS race - say on ballot measure(s).
Like I keep saying, Trump and his fellow MAGA-maggots are trying to boost turnout among some groups (such as young male fellow thugs) while supressing it among others (such sensitive/disgusted women young & old).
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.
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.
The better Secretary of State sites can be fun to look at when they are counting the votes. (In 2004, I called Ohio for Bush with that data before any of the networks did. I saw that there were still many votes to be counted from the exurbs, where he was strong.)
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election
Now I have no idea if that is right, or what number Harris will need to get, and relying on them as your ace in the hole is probably unwise, but she has definitely made a concerted push to appeal to the 10-15% of Republicans who are not full on MAGA Trump fans. If they can get a portion of those, it will be significant.
"Feed these over- and undercounts through the system used to apportion electoral college votes, and analysis from the Heritage Foundation suggests that the results look something like this: Colorado was given one elector more than it should have received, Florida received two too few, Texas one too few, while Minnesota and Rhode Island each cling on to a vote they should have lost.
Had the Census found just 26 fewer people in Minnesota, then the state would have missed out on an elector; it’s now believed that the population was overcounted by about 217,000. Similarly, Florida and Texas needed about 172,000 and 189,000 more residents respectively to each get an additional vote; they were undercounted by approximately 761,000 and 560,000 respectively.
With polling for the election on a knife-edge, it’s not hard to draw out a scenario where this is enough to sway the overall result. Texas and Florida are expected to vote Republican; Minnesota, Colorado and Rhode Island Democrat, depriving Trump of three electoral college votes while handing three to Harris."
(And it might well be. I lumped all my available funds on Harris today.)
That guy got three years iirc.
I see another £2.5 million has been placed on Trump on BF at 1.7. The previous £2 million was laid. Desperate. Harris is great value at 2.44
Jonathan Martin
@jmart
perhaps the most telling sign of the last 72 hours, even the biggest Democratic worrywarts are sounding optimistic
Jonathan Martin
@jmart
·
6h
Maybe most striking is the sense that GA or NC could be in reach. Was hard to find Dems two weeks ago who truly thought either was likely
https://x.com/jmart/status/1853426079966400539
Though I did put a cheeky £1 on Alaska, because you never know.
I've been a big critic of lesser-evilism for many years, and there's a lot of things that the Democrats have done, or refused to do, that would make someone regard the Democrats as simply not good enough. My opinion of Trump is sufficiently negative that I think such views are reckless, but I do understand them.
In many ways the Democrats and Republicans operate a cartel, locking out any other political party, so a one-party state might not superficially seem that different compared to the status quo.
https://x.com/nypost/status/1853502751646330896
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1j3dyzsiucbbcCLH2jg3KtpcHTRkbgXoelDQ4ziysqsA/edit?usp=sharing
I have tried to put a code in such that if I tick a box for Harris (Or Trump) then the other boxes are unchecked but it doesn't seem to be working.
Aaron Rupar
@atrupar
·
16m
Kamala Harris is holding a rally in Pennsylvania at the same time as Trump and she's radiating a lot of confidence
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1853548330418053394
Some dems will go republican too though.
ON THE FLIP SIDE there are also numbers of registered Republcans, in other areas, including most certainly in Pennsylvania, who have become disenchanted with GOP candidates, issue & etc., etc. For example, in suburban Philadelphia & Pittsburgh, but also in rural areas where locals have (and still mostly are) voting Republican since the (old) Party of Lincoln was led by Abe himself.
So 5% of reg PA GOPers > Harris/Walz does NOT seem (to me) to be beyond the bounds of plausibility.
Like here too.
I see this tweet is getting decent engagement. As you all know, I turned off mentions long ago. But I am sure it is all love…
https://x.com/RalstonReports/status/1853535375526092831
If I understand @Barnesian right, it’s one way traffic.
When it comes to election-night broadcasts, miss the days of my misspent youth, when we'd flip the dial between CBS (Walter Chronkite), NBC (Huntley/Brinkley then John Chancellor) and ABC (Harry Reasoner/Howard K. Smith.
Here's a sample featuring Uncle Walter from ENight 1968; begins with start of national broadcast with 2% of votes reporting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aS8b0u84bK0&list=PL3Cgj4wX8fdXsbNgyejR1dyi_HNXxjibc
https://x.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1853554254507868462
literally
https://x.com/matt_dathan/status/1853536476312842525
Good.
We will find out soon enough.
https://rockefeller.dartmouth.edu/about-center/dartmouth-poll/media-and-results
BREAKING: Elon Musk’s $1 million-a-day voter sweepstakes can proceed, a Pennsylvania judge has said
IF (hypothetically) 5% of registered Republicans in the great Keystone State vote for Harris, then (hypothetically) 5% (or whatever) of reg Dems might be voting for Trump.
Either and/or (esp) both a big deal.
How many outliers make a trend?
—GOP has had two prez from California, Nixon + Reagan
—Its first-ever prez nominee was from Calif, Fremont
—But America's most populous (and best) state has never had a Dem nominee for prez. Until now. We'll see tomorrow.
https://x.com/JamesFallows/status/1853554769752637607
Harris is the first Dem nominee from anywhere west of Johnson City, Texas
https://x.com/InnoventionsB/status/1853556116724314260
Dartmouth and Seltzer are overcounting Democrats, because they aren't using past vote weighting and are struggling to reach certain kinds of voter. NYTimes/Siena has a similar issue, but has attempted to correct for it.
On the other hand, most other pollsters have shifted to past vote weighting. Given how unpopular Biden is, this means fewer people will have reported actually voting for him than did. This - and this is Nate Cohn's view - could lead to Democrat voters being undercounted.
For one thing as a party leader, Trump is a loser. He is not popular in America - his leadership has got the the Republicans stuck below a low glass ceiling that’s got Trump written on it. This change election will be a bonus win for the Dems - the only country in the world who didn’t vote out its government after cost of living crisis, and it’s solely down to how poorly Trump has campaigned in recent weeks - boorish, off message, and making threat to democracy a voter concern. He has dropped the ball on the economy in recent weeks.
Secondly, when he won, it’s such a shambolic administration it doesn’t deliver. What are you pointing to as great delivery last time? Managing legal and illegal immigration? Nope. Managing Covid? Nope? Afghanistan? Nope. Managing the economy? Nope. Dodgy judges, tax cuts for the rich, and over turning roe v Wade? Yes to that legacy. You are telling us every single one of the GOP tribes wanted the overturning of Roe v Wade, and some of the restrictive abortion laws now out there?
Times up for Trump. It’s not the dems beating him as we speak - it’s the party he stole taking ownership and control of their future back. They are out there now, snorkelling.
https://nitter.poast.org/PolitlcsUK/status/1853497154674868435#m
Friendly reminder that from now until Wednesday, we are living in the metaphorical equivalent of an airport lounge. Calories don't count. Money doesn't matter. No one will judge you for having a beer at 10am.
It's from a Republican Congresswoman. Is it likely that she has a Democrat consultant friend who told her that it was OK for her to share the view that Democrats think they're doomed?
Remember: nobody knows anything.
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.
But only 30% consider themselves to be a Democrat, 31% a Republican and 39% Other. So Other break massively for Democrat.
In my analysis I was assuming that only 55% of Other break for Democrat.
I've got a feeling ...
He's rattled.
Note that negative campaigning is more likely, in USA anyway, to DEPRESS turnout esp. among infrequent voters. It's more effective (when it works) at persuading folks who are frequent voters or have already decided to vote, including for reasons having little to do with POTUS race - say on ballot measure(s).
Like I keep saying, Trump and his fellow MAGA-maggots are trying to boost turnout among some groups (such as young male fellow thugs) while supressing it among others (such sensitive/disgusted women young & old).
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.
Bizarro.
https://x.com/RobDenBleyker/status/1853484519254376931