2024 Presidential Election thread

[Motown Bombers]

 

[Motown Bombers]

Thread

 

[CMRivdogs]

Mitt will be gone when his term expires in January, his party doesn't want him....

What does he have to lose?

Edited October 10 by CMRivdogs

[CMRivdogs]

Somebody please ask grandpa Trump about being abused by Foxconn, a company from China, that he touted early in his administration.

 

Just wait until Elon  turns on him like he has other "partners" and don't forget Elon is an alien just like several of Trump's other "friends" in the high tech industry.

[CMRivdogs]

Now he's dissing the folks who worked so hard to bring the city back. Just what this country needs a clueless, racist idiot

 

[mtutiger]

4 hours ago, 1776 said:

What did the polls say on the eve of Trump’s 2016 win? Apparently not what Hillary had been expecting. 

The polls said there were a lot of undecided voters between the two candidates, as well as third party voters... more than in the polling aggregates today. And as we would later find out, most of those undecideds broke for Trump and the third parties were far less impactful than expected.

Fast forward to today, in the aggregate, there are far fewer undecideds, third party candidates are basically a non-factor and Kamala is a lot closer to 50% than Hillary ever was in 2016. 

I don't know if she wins or not, the race has overall has been pretty stable and frankly hasn't changed much since the DNC.... I just think "but 2016" is a really tiresome framing for a completely different election with a completely different electorate.

Edited October 10 by mtutiger

[CMRivdogs]

5 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

Now he's dissing the folks who worked so hard to bring the city back. Just what this country needs a clueless, racist idiot

 

And now he's dissing his supporters

 

Edited October 10 by CMRivdogs

[mtutiger]

3 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

Speaking of 2016, 538 had Clinton at 48.5, Trump at 44.9, and Johnson at 5. Clinton finished at 48.2 but Trump at 46.1 and Johnson at 3.2. Trump got enough of that Johnson vote combined with a small move to Stein that gave him a slim win in three states. This year there isn’t a 3rd party polling at 5%. That’s why the margins are slimmer. 

Tangentially, one thing that the polling miss in 2020 taught me was that aggregators and analysts spend way too much time talking about margins and not enough time talking about share.

Biden had some big margins at times in a number of different states and nationally, but he was generally always stuck in a band between 50-52% in terms of share. And, wouldn't you know it, low and behold, what did Biden end up getting nationally??? 51%

It's a tighter race today, but Harris is pretty regularly hitting Biden's 2020 share in national and swing state polling.... nobody should feel comfortable with the outcome of this race, it's a coin flip, maybe slightly favoring Harris, but I think we need to step back and understand how the circumstances of each of these races might be different. 

Edited October 10 by mtutiger

[Motown Bombers]

21 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

Now he's dissing the folks who worked so hard to bring the city back. Just what this country needs a clueless, racist idiot

 

I fully expect the media to chastise Trump the way they would if Harris said the same but insert West Virginia. I expect them to already be in route to a Coney Island on 6 Mile for an interview with the people. 

[CMRivdogs]

11 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Tangentially, one thing that the polling miss in 2020 taught me was that aggregators and analysts spend way too much time talking about margins and not enough time talking about share.

Biden had some big margins at times in a number of different states and nationally, but he was generally always stuck in a band between 50-52% in terms of share. And, wouldn't you know it, low and behold, what did Biden end up getting nationally??? 51%

It's a tighter race today, but Harris is pretty regularly hitting Biden's 2020 share in national and swing state polling.... nobody should feel comfortable with the outcome of this race, it's a coin flip, maybe slightly favoring Harris, but I think we need to step back and understand how the circumstances of each of these races might be different. 

Jonathan Last writing about that today

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/the-polls-are-not-underestimating?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=87281&post_id=150049794&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=45wcm&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Quote

In both elections, Trump’s final polling average was just about 44 percent and his actual vote share was just over 46 percent.1

Trump is currently sitting at 47.2 percent in the RCP average.

Which means that one of two things is happening. Either:

(1) Polling has figured out how to find and weight Trump’s low-propensity voters and has a better sense of his true support level right now. Or,

(2) The polls are still underestimating his support and Trump is going to smash through his old vote-share ceiling and get close to a national majority. This explosion in support would follow January 6th, his felony convictions, and four years of economic expansion under a Democratic president.

You tell me: Which sounds more likely?

Anything is possible. But if I had to bet $100, my money would be on (1). And my reasoning is we’ve got a lot of data on Trump’s ceiling.

Quote

Think about 2016 and 2020 and you’d be hard pressed to come up with consecutive election cycles more dissimilar from one another. And yet Trump’s vote share was, for the most part, right on the line.²

But there’s one other difference between 2016 and 2020: a massive spike in turnout. Here’s how big and extraordinary it was. That’s the biggest jump in at least a generation. Bigger than the jump after 9/11 or with Obama’s election.

Quote

Yet even with that massive change in the composition of the electorate, Trump’s ceiling was basically his ceiling. So if there’s another big change in turnout this year—either an increase or a decrease—we should not expect his ceiling to change with it.

I guess the translation is who the hell knows

[gehringer_2]

49 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

Mitt will be gone when his term expires in January, his party doesn't want him....

What does he have to lose?

Old fools are the worst kind.

[CMRivdogs]

 

[Motown Bombers]

4 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

Jonathan Last writing about that today

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/the-polls-are-not-underestimating?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=87281&post_id=150049794&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=45wcm&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

I guess the translation is who the hell knows

RCP is garbage. It’s become completely right wing. In 2022 it only used right wing polls and no legitimate independent polls. It was way off. It was off on Whitmer by 10 and got the whole red wave wrong. 

[mtutiger]

3 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

to me the fundamental questions remain - who is voting for Trump that didn't vote for him in 2020, who is not voting for Harris that voted for Biden in 2020 - especially since Dobbs? Maybe there is some groundswell movement in the country I have completely missed, but I can't see answers to those questions that favor Trump.

It's not clear the degree, but I think there's enough evidence to suggest that Latino voters are an issue for Harris.... the degree to which its the case is still a fair question (I'd guess Trump still pulls less than 40%, but improves). It's probably a factor in why Arizona has polled worse than the other swing states. To a much lesser degree, black voters as well.

Overall, non-white demos have gotten a lot of attention this cycle, but rural white voters and what they do matters a lot.... I genuinely don't know, both in terms of share and turnout, what will happen there. Some of that is influenced by what I see in day to day life where I live and just, in general, not really having any numbers to look at.

[mtutiger]

7 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

Jonathan Last writing about that today

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/the-polls-are-not-underestimating?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=87281&post_id=150049794&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=45wcm&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

I guess the translation is who the hell knows

Didn't see that, but his framing is basically the million dollar question to me.... and I'd be putting $100 on (1) as well.

I think about the incentives a lot.... the polling industry has taken a beating for the last eight years, really ever since Trump rode down the escalator. They have every single incentive imaginable *not* to underestimate Trump, because doing so would be existential to the business.

 

Doesn't mean that tweaks can't lead to other issues that could benefit either side, but going "but 2016" or "but 2020" all the time reinforces the idea that polls are these static tools that never change. And that isn't accurate.... there's reporting to this effect that pollsters have modified their methods in different ways for this election (with a few exceptions, such as Quinnipiac)

[gehringer_2]

5 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

It's not clear the degree, but I think there's enough evidence to suggest that Latino voters are an issue for Harris.... the degree to which its the case is still a fair question (I'd guess Trump still pulls less than 40%, but improves). It's probably a factor in why Arizona has polled worse than the other swing states. To a much lesser degree, black voters as well.

Overall, non-white demos have gotten a lot of attention this cycle, but rural white voters and what they do matters a lot.... I genuinely don't know, both in terms of share and turnout, what will happen there. Some of that is influenced by what I see in day to day life where I live and just, in general, not really having any numbers to look at.

Sure, there has been a lot of talk about "the Business Man - Trump" being an irresistible draw for Hispanic men worried about their employment prospects. But again, this is not Trump coming out of nowhere like in 2016. If a Hispanic man pulled the lever for Biden in 2020, what has happened in the last 4 yrs to make him think he now wants Trump back? Unemployment going down? Infrastructure spending (and huge #s of Hispanics work in building trades) at a generational high? Housing starts may be down but people sitting in houses pinned by their low rate mortgages are spending on home improvement like drunken sailors.

Polls can postulate all they want, but if there is no plausible theory to the way they are being interpreted, that leads to a certain level of skepticism.

[oblong]

I don't think it's wrong to consider your own experiences with people you talk about this with in your own lives.  I know people who did vote for Trump who are not going to now.  And I strongly suspect there's a group of people who didn't vote at all in 2020 who are now voting for Harris.

That makes it hard to reconcile that this election will be as close as 2020.  But I'm also not someone who claims to be an expert.  I know it's anecdotal.  

 

[romad1]

Not seeing any headlines about Trump dissing the city in the Freep.   But, looks like Detnews had it right

Watch live: Trump unveils plan for auto industry, takes swipe at Detroit

On today of all days when people are crowding downtown to see their beloved baseball and hockey teams...

[romad1]

I'm very dubious that Trump has somehow grown his vote share.  I think Harris will exceed the Biden numbers. 

[mtutiger]

12 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Sure, there has been a lot of talk about "the Business Man - Trump" being an irresistible draw for Hispanic men worried about their employment prospects. But again, this is not Trump coming out of nowhere like in 2016. If a Hispanic man pulled the lever for Biden in 2020, what has happened in the last 4 yrs to make him think he now wants Trump back? Unemployment going down? Infrastructure spending (and huge #s of Hispanics work in building trades) at a generational high? Housing starts may be down but people sitting in houses pinned by their low rate mortgages are spending on home improvement like drunken sailors.

Polls can postulate all they want, but if there is no plausible theory to the way they are being interpreted, that leads to a certain level of skepticism.

A lot of it is just people voting on culture versus voting on economic policy IMO. Hispanic Ds tend to be more culturally conservative than other Ds, so maybe makes some sense that things like Dobbs or immigration have a pull with at least a sliver of those voters.

In general though, I kinda wonder whether this moment is a reverse 2016 where discussions about minority groups and their voting trends overlook the elephant in the room: white voters. Particularly with suburban areas being a real problem for Trump (the PA district level polls showing significant erosion case in point) and particularly if Harris gets black voters to close to where Biden 2020 levels were (looking more likely), what rural white voters do and whether Trump squeezes enough out of that Demographic looms large.... frankly don't think it's being talked about enough.

Edited October 10 by mtutiger

[gehringer_2]

4 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

there's reporting to this effect that pollsters have modified their methods in different ways for this election (with a few exceptions, such as Quinnipiac)

but of course this is a double edged sword since adjustments can only be validated after the result. People have to understand that statistical methods can only read a signal that is really there and they can never capture change in a moving population until after the fact. Both US politics and communication system are in the midst of deep change and which models, if any, from the past will be most accurate going forward is the $64 question. 

[mtutiger]

17 minutes ago, oblong said:

I don't think it's wrong to consider your own experiences with people you talk about this with in your own lives.  I know people who did vote for Trump who are not going to now.  And I strongly suspect there's a group of people who didn't vote at all in 2020 who are now voting for Harris.

That makes it hard to reconcile that this election will be as close as 2020.  But I'm also not someone who claims to be an expert.  I know it's anecdotal.  

 

The usual caveats about yard signs not voting apply, but the county seat (~58% Trump 2020) in my county (~63% Trump 2020, rural/exurban in nature) has roughly an equal amount of Harris and Trump signs. And in general, there aren't a ton of signs or regalia period.

Granted IL isn't a competitive state (if my county was in MI or WI maybe it looks different), but while I don't think it says anything about vote intention, in general this doesn't look like a 2020 high enthusiasm environment where we are at least. It may be different elsewhere though.

Edited October 10 by mtutiger

[mtutiger]

15 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

but of course this is a double edged sword since adjustments can only be validated after the result. People have to understand that statistical methods can only read a signal that is really there and they can never capture change in a moving population until after the fact. Both US politics and communication system are in the midst of deep change and which models, if any, from the past will be most accurate going forward is the $64 question. 

Even beyond the questions of capturing change, they only can tell you the electorate that you model.... ultimately what's modeled and what actually shows up on EDay can be two totally different things

[romad1]

she said what we are feeling 

 

[Motown Bombers]