President Biden: The NEW one and only politics thread

There has been a dearth of reliable polling of late (if you believe in such things), which is why the 538 predictions and such have pretty much held steady.

 

Quinnipac has a doozy today. Harris +3 in Pennsylvania, but trump +2 in Wisconsin and +3 in Michigan.

Seems to be quite an outlier based on shifts. And, in Michigan for example, it has trump winning 18-35 age group by 8 points. Which is obviously not the case.

Polling coverage is just the laziest form of political journalism.

 

You can see him during yard hours.

 

Nate Cohn of the NYT had an interesting behind the scenes look at polling for 2024.

How One Polling Decision Is Leading to Two Distinct Stories of the Election

The crux of the article is that a number of polls are trying to adjust their methodology to ensure they have enough Trump voters to accurately reflect the electorate. But to do so, they're relying on memories of participants, and it leads to some potentially odd polls.

It's also just a guess and a risk that the core data is wrong, which leads to greater likelihood of polling errors.

 

I am firmly in the camp of "I have no fucking idea what is going to happen." I fully admit to being in a bit of a bubble, but I just can't fathom the senile old fuck, traitor and felon winning this election. But he might.

I hear this a lot: "If it's close in the polling, trump will win because he always overperforms his polling numbers."

Perhaps I'll end up being wrong, but I think that's complete bullshit. The models have been adjusted, as you wrote. The two previous elections were wildly different that each other AND this one.

But mostly, a few major things have happened since trump overperformed. 1) he tried to overthrow the fucking government, 2) Roe was struck down because of his lying, shitty SCOTUS picks, and 3) He's become a convicted felon. And not to mention he's too goddamned old and in clear mental and physical decline.

There's no way he gained support because of all of those things. And it's far more likely he's lost support.

Mostly, just get this fucking election over with.

 

You'd think The Atlantic would hire writers who know to avoid dangling participles.

 

“A person that” is my pet peeve.

 

It ultimately comes down to which part of the electorate shows up, which is what these polls are trying to project and may end up missing wildly.

If the inconsistent, less engaged voter who has only voted for Trump lately shows up en masse, that's bad news for Harris.

If the highly engaged, consistent voter shows up, that's great news for Harris.

If men, particularly non-college educated voters, show up at a higher rate, that's bad for Harris.

If women swing harder for Harris because of Roe/Dodd than expected, that's a win for Harris.

And if the youth vote shows up more than expected, that's a win for Harris.

The trouble is figuring out what the mix of the above will be. I'm with you. I have no idea what will happen. I cannot believe that people watched Jan. 6 and think, "Yeah, more of that!"

But I also believe we are incredibly stupid and selfish, and that people are more likely to want to go back to the past - say, pre-COVID - than gamble on a better future.

 

Beth Mowins calls them yurrrd hours.

 

As stupid as polls can be, this at least indicates Stelson has a, uh, fighting chance.

 

Second only to interviewing elderly and supposedly undecided voters in diners.