Stop Obsessing about Kamala Harris’ (Polling) Bumps
I’m going to defend Jonathan Karl, who described ABC’s poll showing a six point lead over Trump as within the margin of error. Here is Dan Drezner’s complaint about Karl’s comment, which is similar to that of many other people.
Take, for example, Sunday’s ABC News/Ipsos poll of the national race. It showed Harris leading 52%-46% among likely voters, a six-point lead that was outside the margin of error. Given the closeness of the race, a national poll showing Harris ahead seems newsworthy.
That, however, is not how ABC’s Jonathan Karl chose to frame it:
Karl says that Harris’ lead is “just barely outside the margin of error,” which is just a weird way to describe one of the few polls where someone has a statistically significant lead. Karl could have simply pivoted from the poll result to talk about how it’s still very close in the Electoral College — but he didn’t. Instead, he described a poll in which Harris had a significant lead as a toss-up.
It’s absolutely right that this poll is outside the margin of error (it is unchanged since before the convention). But Karl is right that the race is much closer in swing states, where voters have been flooded with Trump attacks on Harris for weeks now.
I think Democrats are telling themselves a wildly overoptimistic story about this race. I’m grateful Kamala and her campaign manager keep warning that she remains the underdog in this race.
That’s because this race is unlike any normal race. That’s true not just because Harris is a mixed race woman, though both her gender and race should raise concerns that the polls are overestimating her support (we literally hear stories about Republican women wondering if their spouses will learn for whom they voted). But it’s true because Kamala is not yet halfway through her race, and she’s running against a former President over 90% of the way done.
Pundits are measuring this odd campaign rhythm according to normal rules, such as that conventions bring a bounce (neither did this year) or that Labor Day marks some line in a sand about the final stage of the race.
As one example, both Frank Luntz…
And Nate Silver…
Pointed to this single Michigan poll of 600 possible voters to defend their argument that the Vice President has not gotten a bump from the convention. Neither of these men — a Republican partisan and a guy whose gambling habit may be influencing his analysis — are reliable sources.
And this is a particularly bad poll on which to base such judgments. Polling in MI has been pretty shitty going back two decades (though it is true that Trump has underperformed in many of them). It took WDIV/Detroit News five days to release this poll as compared to one day for their July poll. It was all done post-RFK endorsement of Trump (and as such could reflect RFK’s Trump-leaning vote moving to the former president), but before his bid to be removed from the ballot failed. Because of Michigan’s significant Arab American population, it is the swing state most likely to be influenced by Biden’s failures on Israeli policy. The August poll has a Likely Voter category (the one they report) and a Definite Voter category, the latter of which Kamala leads by 1.6%.
And as my former blogmate Dana Houle (who has run statewide campaigns in MI) noted, this poll delays release of crosstabs, and when they released theirs in January, they showed wildly unlikely results (results equally inconsistent with July’s poll).
More importantly, both the WDIV poll and the ABC one show two things that many polls are reflecting: First, while overall support for the candidates may look the same, the nature of their support is changing, with a gender split growing for each.
More curiously, that’s happening even as Kamala Harris’ favorability is going up. Even Joe Biden is on course to tip over into favorable ratings by election day!
That’s also happening as the electorate, at least in the short term, is becoming more female, more diverse.
What’s going on with the race is that Trump has a ceiling of support. While more men may be saying they’ll vote for Trump, Trump is not getting more popular.
And so he needs to do something to increase Kamala’s negatives (the success of negative ads may explain the narrower polling in swing states, but Trump’s future ad payments may indicate he’s blowing the money it would take to keep that up).
And therein, I think, was the intent of the Arlington Cemetery stunt — where Trump’s people, invited in by a few people who lost family members in the Afghan withdraw — took video from the gravesides of people whose family did not give consent, and did so after physically shoving a cemetery staffer.
This is the Benghazi playbook. Trump’s attempt to politicize an Afghan withdrawal that he played an instrumental role, according to his own former National Security Adviser, in making chaotic. This is, as everything with Trump is, a planned stunt coordinated with the House GOP.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) announced that Congress will honor the 13 American service members killed in the attack by presenting their families with the Congressional Gold Medal on Sept. 10.
“Congress has a duty to ensure these sacrifices are never forgotten, and it is my distinct honor to announce that Congress will bestow the families of these 13 heroes with the Congressional Gold Medal — the highest award Congress can present to any individual or group,” Johnson said in a statement released last week.
The ceremony, and remarks by a bevy of Republican lawmakers, will take place at the U.S. Capitol Rotunda the same day as the presidential debate between Harris and Trump.
Like Trump’s planned attack on Biden incorporating documents altered by DOJ, and like his hosting of Tony Bobulinski in October 2020, Trump is hoping he can use the debate to stage a Reality TV event that gives right wingers a hook for the remainder of the campaign.
The reason why right wingers still complain that 51 former spooks said, truthfully, that the Hunter Biden laptop looked like an Russian information operation is that it undercut Trump’s Reality TV show; Trump even tried to use that as his stunt for the debate with Biden.
Here, though, Trump doesn’t have the two to four years on which both the Hunter Biden laptop and the Benghazi attacks built. Plus, the Arlington stunt has begun to backfire, most notably with John McCain’s son publicly endorsing Kamala in response. If Jamie Raskin succeeds in getting answers from DOD about what happened before the debate, it risks upending Trump’s hoped-for attack by demonstrating the contempt in which he holds service members. This risks turning into yet another story on how Trump believes service members are suckers and losers.
There’s one more thing that remains unsteady in this race: The great disparity in most polls between statewide and presidential polling (one exception out today, CNN’s, shows at least two state races — the Senate races in AZ and PA — that are not remotely credible). That may reflect misses in the modeling of the race more generally.
Kamala Harris has not gotten the polling bumps where pundits are trained to look for them.
But even as they watch for those signs closely, they’re not contemplating how other nearly unprecedented movement might shape the race.
Update: One more point about the weird timing of this race. USAT has a poll (which finished fieldwork on August 28) showing that Kamala has significantly narrowed the margins on the two topics Trump wanted to run on: the economy and immigration.
Harris also has made inroads on which candidate would do a better job handling important issues.
- On the economy, voters’ top concern, Trump was favored over Harris by 6 percentage points, 51%-45%. That’s an asset, to be sure, but it is less than half the 14-point advantage he held over Biden in June.
- On immigration, an issue that energizes Republican voters, Trump was favored by 3 points, 50%-47%, down from the 13-point preference he had over Biden.
She has narrowed that gap, even while she’s still rolling out policy proposals, such as new tax credits to support small business formation.
Harris’ proposal, released on Tuesday, calls for significantly expanding the tax deduction for start-up expenses from $5,000 to $50,000, while also setting the goal of 25 million new small-business applications during her first term, according to a Harris campaign official granted anonymity to describe details of the plan. The plan also proposes reducing barriers to getting occupational licenses and developing a standard tax deduction for small businesses.
There’s a famous line Andy Card used when discussing the Iraq War in 2002: “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.”
Whether by necessity or design, Kamala can offer news events like this for the next several weeks. And this one sets up a solid contrast before the debate, in which Trump will be forced to defend tax cuts for billionaires over support for small businesses.
MSNBC yesterday came to the conclusion that big convention bumps were a thing of the past.
Old punditry doesn’t time-travel well.
Josh Marshall made a pretty good case a few days ago that Kamala’s bump preceded the convention:
What’s the deal with Nate Silver? He seems like he’s fully embracing this contrarian persona where everything he says has some snark (usually against Democrats). He had a recent AMA on Reddit which was quite embarrassing, with some COVID and lockdown comments that were just bullshit.
I’ve been following his “election forecast” for a few days and his commentary is always along these lines:
Harris polls above Trump: “Harris has a feeble lead and might not hold for much longer – it definitely doesn’t look too good for the future”
Trump polls above Harris: “Trump is holding strong and it’s unlikely Harris can retake the lead unless something crazy happens”
1) He’s selling a book.
2) The book reveals something that looks suspiciously like a gambling problem.
3) After he lost his last job in a period when he was gambling $ thousands/mo, he was hired by a Peter Thiel venture to a role that has the ability to impact gambling outcomes.
Oh shit. If he’s been gambling on election outcomes — and helping others who may also do the same — everything he’s written about elections could be skewed by that lens.
As an example, Brexit may have been set up for short sales of the pound sterling. Nigel Farage certainly looked happy about the pound’s crash.
What are the chances Bannon encouraged Thiel to hire Silver? They could be attempting to set up short sales but using our lives.
Here’s a piece from Slate on Polymarkets activities
https://slate.com/technology/2024/08/polymarket-nate-silver-prediction-markets-gambling.html
I don’t think it should do anything to allay your general concerns as to the corrupting effect of gambling on politics and elections, but it does seem to be a different sort of operation to the Farage Brexit night manipulation of the value of the £ on financial markets which I know you are very familiar with having discussed it at some depth on a previous thread.
Polymarket is the obvious application but did Silver get hired in the first place because 1) he had a track record, and/or 2) Bannon, a former fund manager with ties to Farage, either knew about the connection or saw the opportunity Silver offered and promoted him to Thiel-Polymarket?
If it’s successful once they do it again. Brexit was successful and made somebody some bank. Why wouldn’t they do it again.
And now we should be asking ourselves if this has also shaped news media — are outlets not only influenced by oddsmakers in their coverage by quoting them without caveats or research, but are the managers or the news business invested in betting because their old business model is unsuccessful? This is what “Neutron Jack” Welch did at GE in buying NBC; Karl Rove encouraged him to buy NBC through GE to shape tax policy affecting GE. Are news media invested in any businesses which are based on predictive markets?
1. No one is comparing polls and Dem’s overperformance since Dobbs. There’s been some gobsmacking upsets and near wins.
2. Back when he posted on DailyKos, Nate pointed out that likeability (or favorable opinion) was a historical predictor of who would win. This was prescient when it came to Hillary. Harris and Walz’ favorability just keeps climbing.
3. Forget all of the above and work like we’re 10 pts behind!
The post-Dobbs effect is the thing that keeps me in doubt about the current state of polling. It seems as though the Dems have outperformed their polling in every special election since Dobbs, and of course outperformed polls in the 2022 midterms. This implies that the pollsters’ turnout models have gone obsolete since Dobbs, and I see no reason to believe that the polling outfits have adjusted to that reality.
That gives me hope.
Lots of work still to be done, of course.
“This implies that the pollsters turnout models have gone obsolete…”
I believe you’re on to something.
One factor I don’t think turnout models have taken into consideration is the pandemic. I don’t mean the effect on persons avoiding the polls to reduce risk of infection, which likely played some role in 2020.
But I think demographics have changed due to COVID and excess deaths in a way which could shape that fuzzy margin. Historically the most reliable voters were the oldest and more conservative, but what if that segment of the population was most affected since 2020? What if Trump’s most reliable voters are dead? What if the younger, healthier voters who are more likely to be liberal don’t respond well to polling?
Answering Rayne: Polling actually shows Kamala leading among seniors and I’ve seen (from Nate Cohn, among others) saying, what if it’s true?
What if it’s true bc Trump killed his seniors off?
Charles Gaba’s work crunching COVID deaths vs. red/blue votes certainly looked like COVID knocked off Trump voters between 2020-2022. That’s what shapes my thinking — I just don’t know how much it might have affected excess deaths as well since they’re usually in tandem but I don’t know of any granular analysis.
ADDER: it has to make some difference in the states that are most thinly populated and are also red:
source: Pew Research
Chart reflects up through 1Q2022, but those same areas are no less anti-vaxx and anti-mask than they were in 2022.
2020 was a strange election in many ways. Someone looked at the returns against the total eligible. Turns out Biden had more votes than non voters, first time that happened in a presidential election since at least 1976. Part of that may be COVID related, but another part is how many were voting to make sure Trump wasn’t going to win, along with his mistaken impression that because he won in 2016 that he would always win. He seems to be going with the same play book this time around.
The question of the changing age segmentation of the US population over time and the impact of COVID deaths is an interesting one.
The background trend of aging of the population in general is evident from this Statistical graph showing age distribution USA 2012-2022 (published 2024)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/270000/age-distribution-in-the-united-states/
Shows data for 3 groups 0-14, 15-65, 65+
And that over the 12 year period the % of the population in the 1st and 2nd groups has steadily declined and in the 3rd group increased
2012 19.64% 66.77% 13.58%
…
2022 17.96% 64.91% 17.13%
So the effect of COVID deaths may be masked or mitigated by these larger long term population trends.
Obviously this is only a hypothesis based on very broad data, but it perhaps points to something which might need to be considered in any analysis of the impact of COVID deaths on age distribution of the electorate.
One thing seniors mentioned at the Villages golf cart parade was their concern about Project 2025 and Medicare.
I was thinking about the post-Dobbs overperformance pattern. Has there been any convincing analysis of why that keeps happening, i.e., why pollsters are missing that Dobbs effect?
On the other hand, those have been mid-term and special elections without Trump himself on the ballot, which some analysts have observed makes Trumpies less excited about showing up. Trump significantly overperformed his polling in 2020, and at least slightly did in 2016. So the question is which polling mistake is more likely to happen again this year?
I believe one pandemic-related reason Trump over-performed polls in 2020 was that Democrats did little if any canvassing, while the GOP went merrily about spreading the virus. I was told by an organizer working in a congressional district that the Dem lost by < 400 votes that the lack of canvassing was almost certainly the reason. There was a strong "ground game" in 2022, and there is a strong one now.
Hm, thanks for the thoughts. Sounds plausible as an explanation for why more Dems didn’t get out to vote, but does it explain why pollsters would miss that?
And vote – in person if you can – on the first day that you are able. Banking our votes for Kamala and down-ballot Ds early will enable the campaigns to better focus their GOTV efforts as the election season wears on.
Just a reminder to folks that the MOE doesn’t apply to the margin between the candidates, but to the results for *each* candidate, so for a candidate’s lead to be statistically significant, it would need to be greater than *twice* the MOE, otherwise it is possible that the other candidate could actually be in the lead.
It’s worth understanding that this is a heuristic that’s only true in something that behaves like a two-person race with near-100% response. Otherwise the errors quickly become much less (negatively) correlated and we wouldn’t expect two different responses to both be off by near maximum values in opposite directions just by chance.
Technically true, however in cases with small margins and large MOE’s (like today’s CNN swing state polls), maximum opposite values aren’t necessary to flip the lead to the other candidate.
It just shows how imprecise many polls are.
My two cents or my preference in these times, two bits. I don’t go to many news sites but what I see is very imbalanced.
I’m 73, Gay & have attended demonstrations since Viet Nam. We gays have had a lot of activisms in our times.
I live in (West) Hollywood. I know mass manipulation when I see it. Reagan was elected in part besides, the main game of paying the Iranians to hold the hostages, simply because he was television family. I.e. the people stars on TV become psychologically familiar family. When Trump was elected, during that campaign I was blown away by people who liked TFG because they had watched “The Apprentice.” Astonishingly including people of color. Huh?
I relay this because what I am seeing in the current billionaire owned news is how much MORE TFG’s photos are appearing than Kamala’s and LARGER also. “He” is getting a mass manipulation familiar photos bump. Need I explain misogyny or race or the ? she is the V.P. of the U.S. The candidate for President!
So as you of those who visit news sites, mentally note the difference & if I may, recommend if you know of people in the business call them on it!
That’s absolutely right!! But I think that model is as dead as Trump’s presidency.
To which model are you referring?
Visual representation has a huge psychological effect. Maybe, the orange stain’s pics are looking more and more unpleasant to some voters, maybe. For almost half of us, they were already repulsive.
But others may simply react to his ‘familiar’ face which is, of course a white male’s, versus Harris’ unfamiliar one, which is ‘colored’ and ‘female.’ For a huge number of people, she is semiotically out of place inside the White House.
Tie that ‘out of place’ bias too fewer pics of her and she magically becomes even more ‘out of place’ as in, no way, no how do we trust this brown woman in the big chair, i.e. we cannot even imagine her in that seat.
So the choice not to show representations of her in positions of power, which would make her seem less ‘out of place’ probably further conditions people reject her.
This is just axiomatic for anyone who studies race and gender issues.
Flipping the semiosis in this equation in a huge deal, just huge.
Something similar happened during the first impeachment trial. On the first day of Schiff’s closing argument, the camera was set so that you got a directly frontal view of Schiff’s face, so he was talking right to the viewer.
On day two, the camera was subtly shifted so that it was slightly higher, so it was pointing downward. Thus, the viewer didn’t get the full effect of being talked to. It took away some of the impact of his words.
David Brooks is a dunderhead, but we all knew that.
His latest tale from the past “(How Trump Wins (and Harris and the Democrats Blow It)” is a shabby analysis
thinking 2016 is 2024.
I’m lucky living in Massachusetts. I just moved to the North Shore from Central Mass and I checked out my
voting precinct results in 2020. 75.4% voted for Biden. I’m hoping in 2024 it will accelerate to 90% for Harris.
Ignore polls. In a close race, the only useful information they contain is trend information and some cross-tabs. Everything else is swamped by model error. The pollsters have to deal with low response rates, non-random samples, priming errors, unreliable respondents, etc. I’m surprised that they do as well as they do.
IOW, the race is tight as a tick and that’s all we know. If you wanna do something productive, join a campaign or cut a check.
Polls aren’t good as they used to be, but then they never were.
Way back in 1976, I read Mkchael Wheeler’s “Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics: The Manipulation of Public Opinion in America” which (among other things) simply matched outcomes with polls. The comparisons were not impressive.
Then, in 1980, while working at The Des Moines Register, I saw the (always described as ‘well-respected’) Iowa Poll get the sign wrong. On election night, the editor was — literally — walking around with his head in his hands, the only time I’ve evr seen anyone do that IRL.
All the problems that made the polls Wheeler examined perform so badly are still operating now, with new problems added.
This, this, and 1000x this.
Trends are useful, because they compare how you were doing X weeks ago with today. The model is the same, so the model errors and the same. It tells the campaign which way things are headed.
It tells you much less about how things will turn out once the ballots are actually cast. Simply trying to juggle the variables to create a good sample of what the electorate will be on election day is no easy task for any polling outfit, and it has gotten increasingly complex.
Once upon a time, absentee mail-in ballots favored the GOP, and you could look at the numbers that were mailed in to get an idea of a portion of the electorate. Even asking “do you plan to vote absentee” gave a sense of how well the GOP was going to do with those voters. In 2020, with everything Trump did to denigrate everything but walk-in, day-of-the-election voting, Dems became much more favored by absentee voters. Today, pollsters are wrestling with a question that is simple to state and difficult to answer: how much weight do you give the absentee folks, and in which direction?
Polling is useful in planning how to operate a campaign. It is much less useful in predicting the ultimate outcome, especially this far out. To borrow from some local polling here in KC, as the NFL begins their season tomorrow, the Chiefs are favored to do very very well once everything is over in February. But if they pick up a couple of key season-ending injuries in tomorrow night’s game, those polls become meaningless.
Because of where I live in West MI, I have seen 2 different Harris attack ads that end with an appeal to request an absentee ballot to “skip the line”. When I saw the first one the first time, I was gobsmacked and wondered if it was some weird anti-Trump ad directing people to a fake site. I didn’t follow through to see if the site listed actually eventually got one to the SOS absentee ballot request page. If I see it again, I will just because I’m still curious. As you said, Trump did so much to make his voters not trust the absentee ballot system that I’m surprised anyone is trying to re-educate conservative voters to vote absentee. Especially in a swing state.
Agree that trends are worth tracking. To wit: Harris is gaining women voters while Trump (to a slightly lesser extent) compensates by attracting men. The most interesting aspect of this trend to me is that these are *white* women and men whose choices are migrating.
Worth keeping in mind: Women outnumber men among the voting public, and tend to vote more consistently. Placing an emphasis on turning out all those women would serve us well–especially in, say, the suburbs around Phoenix, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh. I’ll take Detroit.
Indeed re voting women vs men. I gotta wonder how many of those chest-thumping online dudebros are actually registered to vote. I would bet that a significant fraction of them are not, nor will they get off their asses to do so since that would require them to actually DO something other than rant online.
It’s astonishing how the NY Times has Frank Luntz running focus groups for them with Deputy Opinion Editor Patrick Healy. It’s even worse that they don’t disclose just how deep his ties to the GOP are. Luntz was doing political consulting for the Trump White House as recently as 2020 and had Kevin McCarthy living in his house in 2021.
https://www.salon.com/2021/07/01/kevin-mccarthy-now-says-he-stayed-in-frank-luntzs-penthouse-to-care-for-stricken-gop-pollster/
I know you’ve got a strange system for electing presidents. We’ve seen it go pear-shaped before (even without the premature intervention of SCOTUS). But, please, give us in the wider world a shred of hope to hang on to! The outcome of your presidential election will affect us all.
You have one candidate who’s a felon and fraud, not very bright, backed by the authors of Project 2025. The other candidate is well-educated, articulate, and far more experienced. Yet they’re neck-and-neck?
Let me go pour a glass of wine and weep into it, as I did when the UK narrowly voted for Brexit.
‘You’re not from around here, are you?’
/s/
It’s the Greed, fueled by the Money and the Power.
The only thing I can see to do is VOTE and then attempt reform from within once the good guys win office.
A man can hope…
We don’t like it either. We were handed a good-enough-for-now constitution 235 years ago, got to steadily improve it at the margins as we went along for a good while, and then the system ossified ~60 years ago and no one since the boomers have ever had a chance to do anything about it.
A lot of the boomers are not doing well. Some of us never had a chance at houses, or jobs that paid well. (I never had a new car before 2002.)
Excuse me. Are there other parameters you like to use to group people. Perhaps their sexual orientation, or the color of their skin. Maybe their religious beliefs. As a Gay man over 70, I know where bigotry leads. I was almost beaten to death for being a homosexual. I’m sorry, but I will not just let comments like yours slide by.
Boomers isn’t a discriminatory term as it labels a demographic class by date of birth — the post-WWII Baby Boom births.
Neither is Gen X, Millennial, Gen Z, or Gen Alpha. Again, labels of demographics by birth dates.
The challenge to the electorate as a whole is that Boomers were an extremely large percentage of the population, with an outsized impact on legislation which has negatively affected other smaller groups including minority groups.
We’re going to do what we can but you should concern yourself with what is going on in your own backyard. What is going on across the EU, from the lean toward the right in France, to fascists winning local elections in Germany, to Orban’s continued undermining of EU and NATO?
This is not just an American problem. The resurgence of fascism is global and it must be squashed wherever it raises its ugly head.
From your handle- Lisboeta – and other references I guess you are Portuguese, and that existence under an actual and avowed fascist regime, it’s subsequent overthrow, the difficult transition to democracy and the nation finding its place within a community of democratic nations, is all within the living memory of your family and yourself.
FWIW I for one doubt you need lectures on the international nature of fascist organisation and the necessity for both local action and international cooperation to oppose, resist and turn it back.
But I am just guessing of course.
I think we all want for ourselves and for others to maintain the positive vibes without falling into complacency. I think it’s correct to discount the polls, recognizing all the systemic flaws of any statistical model that can only do one sample every two to four years.
At the same time, I think there are a variety of leading indicators (including small-donor fundraising numbers and the demographic breakdown of new voter registrations) that inspire as much, if not more cause for optimism than the polls. It’s okay to feel good about these things!
Where I think we need to be deeply mindful is that there are two things that go beyond just defeating Trump in November that are absolutely necessary in order to stabilize our democratic institutions. First we need a broad victory, not a narrow one. Post-election shenanigans need to be moot in the face of the outcome. Secondly, we need the trifecta in order to realize necessary “patches for security vulnerabilities” in the source code of the United States. Even if the optimistic interpretations of polling data are wholly accurate, taking the senate is a steep climb. Keep your foot on the pedal.
I think it’s fine not to get too obsessed over the daily bumps and dips. The general polling lately seems to show that Kamala had a small but real lead, which could easily reverse. My problem is how the media lately is almost enthusiastically downplaying any Kamala lead, but Trump leads (which were usually less than what she has right now) were considered dominant and insurmountable. It seems like her team has come to realize that the media is not their friend.
[Welcome back to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We have adopted this minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is too short and common it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]
Other than poll gaming and deliberate poll inaccuracy, I find the notion that this could be decided by undecideds frightening. I will be charitable and say that perhaps they are just so demoralized and undecided whether to vote at all.
It will be decided by turnout. “Undecided voter” is usually not an accurate description. It’s a polling category for those people who do not like to talk to pollsters, which seems to be a much larger group these days.
Polling has always been difficult because the sample sizes are tiny, and the methods for gathering data unlikely to get a random sample. Hence, the need for “models” to somehow fix this problem. This technique has fallen on hard times as no one seems to have a good model.
The poll behavior would not be persuasive if it was not corroborated by the election results of 2008 and 2020. The results of 2008 should be instructive.
Poll behavior favored Senator McCain until approximately September 23. After that polls fairly forecast the eventual result. In 2008 it took time for people to accept that Barack Obama would be the next President.
If VP Harris is already drawing positive poll behavior, the adjustment is already occurring. The adjustment of opinion will take some time.
Today MSNBC revealed a new poll showing VP Harris with a 27% advantage over the opponent among Hispanic voters. Its just one demographic group. But it is typical of what the process will look like as opinion changes.
Responding to Rayne at 1:58.
I agree. But the surge towards fascism is not a sudden event but the result of a steady drip, drip, drip of dumbing down our educational system which then leads to greater reliance on magical thinking furthering the susceptibility of a populace to manipulation. One election is but a drop in an ocean needed to be drained and refilled.
Dude. You’re preaching to the choir.
My reply to Lisboeta was about EU which doesn’t have the same taxation system as the U.S. nor the two-party system which has proven more easy to co-opt than EU’s political system. We can see what happens through the UK’s decline when a multi-party system becomes more of a two–party system, and when classism and racism allow oligarchs and corporations to press for privatization. EU needs to get a grip on this now before they find themselves in US-like situation.
The correct adjective for Card’s quote is “infamous”.
Keep in mind, 60% of the US population is white. Half of that population is female. Among people age 50 years and older, more than 1/2 of the population is female. That’s over age 50 group is where differential mortality rates due to COVID will matter.
Only about 5/12 of the male population is age 40 or older. Therefore the segment in which voter behavior should strongly favor the Republican nominee is only about 5/24ths of the voters. If ethnicity is factored in, its even less.
Its something that confirms the observations above that is extremely difficult for poll makers to obtain a representative sample. It also should be considered that now that poll techniques are well known, the sample that responds to poll makers may reflect changed respondent behavior that introduces another bias.
My arithmetic is a little off, but the conclusion is valid. Old, white men are not large demographic section. But polls may be over sampling that segment because its hard to reach the other demographic groups.
In 2008 Senator McCain was saddled with a bad economy and had to carry the baggage of George Bush’s unpopularity. Still it took time for polls behavior to turn against him.
The current Republican Presidential nominee has to deal with his own unpopularity, which remains unchanged.
Poll answers about the economy don’t ask is the main earner in the family employed and getting full pay. They don’t ask whether small business owners have seen an increase in sales and improvement in the balance sheet.
There must be data that includes/reflects that McCain was “saddled” also with Sarah Palin.
Polling as done by Nate Silver has seemed to be hinky for a while now, but i cannot substantiate that with any links, just something gut for me since 2019-2020 or thereabouts.
It is also hinky, how polling, in a fundamental, institutional fashion, has come to be a dominant feature in political reporting. Back in the dawn of computers there was an acronym and meme, “garbage in, garbage out,” which seems to have become roundly ignored.
Quite a few stories at the time suggested McCain did a Trump, and used his gut to pick Palin, without much vetting. Perhaps he also thought, like Trump, that no VP could hurt you. He may also have thought he needed help with the women’s vote, after stories leaked about how crudely dismissive he was to his wife. I don’t recall any that suggested McCain was saddled with Palin and accepted her against his will. Doesn’t sound like him.
People made fun of Sarah Palin, but she was never considered mean. Silly, perhaps. But I think mockery of Ms. Palin was a symptom of disapproval rather than a cause of McCain’s problems.
VP nominee Vance might be different than Sarah Palin. Minority voters and women voters can see in Vance a personification of white male privilege.
Robert, Palin was and is a fucking racist.
self-saddled?
Giddyup!
EoH —
i didn’t mean to imply McCain was saddled with Palin, but that the voting public saw that he was. Am i misremembering, or did Palin not put the chef’s kiss on his fate?
I agree that the public perception was that McCain saddled himself with a volatile, high-profile, unpredictable loser, much the same way Trump has. Whether he agreed with that, I have no idea. I think he lost for a lot of reasons, she was one. As for the comment that Palin was never mean, her candidacy and post-candidacy career and personal life suggest the opposite.
Palin was a nasty piece of work, indeed. McCain – in desperation? – thought maybe he caught lightning in a bottle with his “unconventional” choice, and it blew up on him.
You betcha—Palin’s “lightning” boomeranged right back on the McCain campaign!
Here’s what I’m wondering about right now:
1. What will be the swing states around October 1?
2. How many people who have attained voting age since 2020 will: (a) register, (b) vote?
3. Outside of this group, how many first time voters will there be?
4. What is MAGA’s ceiling?
5. What will CFTFG’s GOTV effort consist of?
note-in-person canvassing using mobile voter roll apps on behalf of Haris/Walz has already started here in urban Ohio.
6. What kinds of ads will the PACS run for each side?
Replying to Ryan’s about COVID deaths.
As a medical writer, I feel extrapolating the number of deaths in red and blue countries or by age to democratic and republican voters is problematic. During the first two years of the pandemic, COVID deaths in nonmetropolitan areas were disproportionately higher among Hispanic, Asian, Black and Native American populations than White populations.
The national racial/ethnic disparity in COVID death rates decreased with each successive wave, but this was because of increased penetration in rural areas. But within this areas, people of color still had higher death rates per 100,000 (except for nonmetropolitan Hispanic Whites in the Omicron wave, whose death rate declined to that of their nonHispanic counterparts.) The higher death rate for people of color, even in rural areas, is partly because they were more likely to have comorbidities that increase the risk of COVID death and were less likely to be vaccinated (despite republicans being so hostile to vaccines).
While it seems likely that the low percentages of people of color living in nonmetropolitan populations means that the number of COVID deaths was much greater among White voters (and thus felled more republican voters), I haven’t seen a comparison of the absolute numbers of deaths by race/ethnicity in red counties vs blue counties.
Go read Charles Gaba’s work. He drilled down to county level. All of his posts on the subject: https://acasignups.net/covid19
Michigan Advance reported article from October 2021 discussing his work: https://michiganadvance.com/2021/10/20/new-michigan-counties-that-voted-heavily-for-trump-have-more-covid-19-cases-deaths/
NBER paper: Excess Death Rates for Republicans and Democrats During the COVID-19 Pandemic – Sep 2022 https://www.nber.org/papers/w30512
Peer-reviewed in JAMA, July 24: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2807617
Let’s not forget there has been a vaccination rate disparity along red/blue voting lines with blue counties having higher rates of vaccination. https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/the-red-blue-divide-in-covid-19-vaccination-rates-continues-an-update/
Native American/Pacific Islanders may have had lower rates of vaccination than whites, but they may have had higher rates of vaccination than red-voting whites at county-level.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7123a2.htm
A couple of points I’d like to add to these comments.
Liz Cheney has endorsed Kamala Harris. While I’m no Cheney fan, I feel her endorsement will have some positive value.
Goldman Sachs has basically endorsed not just Harris, but Democrats in general by predicting “stronger GDP and job growth if Democrats sweep White House and Congress.”
A traditional Republican and a major corporation represent just 2 data points, but I’d argue they are important ones.
I am still thinking of polls. If VP Harris leads in poll responses among voters under age 44, among women, among African/Americans, and among Hispanic/Americans, exactly how can poll produce a result which shows a closely contested election? The suggestion above that the samples have been poorly constructed, and results mathematically weighted to produce a likely voter profile seems to be the answer. Its likely that the likely voter profile decreases the weight of replies by people who are first time or relatively new voters.
Thus spake Mr. Zappa near the end of the Reagan years. (He also foresaw the poisoning of the political system by televangelism).
The upshot from that quote regarding political pollsters is that their function is on the one hand entertainment and the other a way to influence dynamic probabilities. I’ve never been able to take Silver as a very serious political scientist (after closely examining his methods). And obviously Luntz is partisan as hell. Allan Lichtman seems to have a solid grasp of inductive reasoning (he just predicted KH as the winner today); his model is based more on reality than anything else out there and that model doesn’t rely on the not insignificant assumption that poll responses reveal what the registered/likely voter actually think, feel or will do (e.g. see Marcy’s remark on Republican women). Even if KH is as far ahead as some folks would like to think, then those folks need to realize that the victory must be crushing if the apparent planned MAGA after-coup is to be thwarted. This is an all hands on deck moment for our Constitution.
Getting out the democratic-leaning vote (block walking, etc.) is what is needed; and having already-recalcitrant voters think KH is ahead (when she may not be) will thwart that effort. Hopefully your down-ticket candidates are reminding their audiences to vote all the way down the ticket: don’t just walk in and vote for Kamala, vote for those that can support her in Congress, in the school boards, in city councils, … (a lot of never/rarely-voters are not aware of the impact of voting only for the Presidential candidate). The two weeks before early voting begins in your area is when you can have the most impact by block-walking/phone-banking/letter-writing (block-walking is hands down the most effective means to get recalcitrant voters to the voting booths). 60 days to the election.
With any luck, the margin of error goes in Kamala’s (and down-tickets’) favor, by which I mean KH’s support percentages are ME (Margin of Error) low and Trump’s are ME high. In that case, given hard GOTV work, it won’t just be a near-win or barely-win, but a solid win that takes the wind out of the tea-partiers’ (and their MAGA goons’) sails. But, after Hillary’s loss, I’m going to assume the numbers aren’t good enough; only after all the voting booths close will I rest.
We need government, not the Trump reality TV circus show entertainment. The larger the voter turnout, the better Kamala’s chances are. Good luck to us all.
I echo the calls to take anything Silver says with a massive grain of salt. If it is true that he has a gambling problem (especially if said problem is with gambling on elections!), he is very easily compromised and manipulated. First of all, “exotic” betting (including some sports) is very much influenced by organized crime and thus if he has gambling debts, it would be easy to make him an offer he couldn’t refuse. Secondly, if he’s actually betting on something that he has the ability to influence, that would put him in DOJ’s crosshairs as well, and anyone with evidence of that could be using that to influence his opinions (i.e. “blackmail”).
I know these are ugly things to think, but if the last 8 years have shown us anything, it’s the importance of MICE and how foreign (and domestic) power players are able to influence the levers of power through Money, Ideology, Compromise and Ego.