I agree that signs point to a close election. That said, one of the anti-Trump Republican consultants (can't remember whether it was Rick Wilson or Stuart Stevens) pointed out a few weeks ago that some campaigns seem close and then the bottom drops out for one side around October 20. (I think the 1980 election was like that--for much of the campaign Carter wasn't that far behind Reagan.) This consultant thought Trump would end up losing by a substantial margin in the electoral college.
Trying to predict who'll win the presidency is like a weather forecaster trying to determine whether the high temp on Monday will be 80 or 81. "You said we'd get 2 inches of snow and we only got 1.85 inches. Do better!"
Doesn't the Democratic electorale grow sgnificantly because of endorsements by Taylor Swift, Billie Eillish etc. ? And does that not favor the outcome for Harris?
We don't really know. Swift's endorsement allegedly led hundreds of thousands to register, but we don't know their party lean, whether they would have registered anyway, how many of them will vote, how they'll vote, etc. Celebrity endorsements in general elections rarely have any sort of detectable effect in the end.
Seth, I will go out on a limb and say it will be a nail bitter right up till they start counting the votes. However this is guaranteed, if Harris looses the rural counties in Michigan Pennsylvania and Wisconsin 90-10 it’s going to be a long night for the Uniparty. Bonus: The Uniparty is going to be crying in their organic environmental sustainability beer because they will lose North Carolina. Speaking of which: how about let’s have you put a Coors on the table and I will sit down a Strohs, winner gets both. 😉😉😉
“In 2016, there was every reason to expect a substantial win by Hillary Clinton.”
I don’t think this is true, and I think it shows why polls are not enough to make predictions.
I volunteered for Sanders’ campaign in 2016 and was calling into states like PA and WI quite early in the primary process. I thought there were several warning signs for Clinton then, like news stories about thousands of rust-belt voters changing party affiliation from D to R, presumably so they could vote for Trump in the GOP primaries.
Later, volunteering for Clinton’s campaign, it was common for calls going to PA, to what records showed were D registrants, to be answered by pro-Trump voters.
It’s true that he only won by a few tens of thousands of votes giving him an EC win, but I can say that based on my experience as a campaign volunteer that I was very worried that she was going to lose based on what I was seeing at that individual voter level.
There was definitely some of that, but it wasn't really systematic or consistent. There was also other evidence of prominent Republicans endorsing Clinton or refusing to vote for Trump, poor attendance and disorganization at the RNC, etc. Like, we know in hindsight what the better clues were, but it was not at all obvious in the moment.
I agree that signs point to a close election. That said, one of the anti-Trump Republican consultants (can't remember whether it was Rick Wilson or Stuart Stevens) pointed out a few weeks ago that some campaigns seem close and then the bottom drops out for one side around October 20. (I think the 1980 election was like that--for much of the campaign Carter wasn't that far behind Reagan.) This consultant thought Trump would end up losing by a substantial margin in the electoral college.
Trying to predict who'll win the presidency is like a weather forecaster trying to determine whether the high temp on Monday will be 80 or 81. "You said we'd get 2 inches of snow and we only got 1.85 inches. Do better!"
Doesn't the Democratic electorale grow sgnificantly because of endorsements by Taylor Swift, Billie Eillish etc. ? And does that not favor the outcome for Harris?
We don't really know. Swift's endorsement allegedly led hundreds of thousands to register, but we don't know their party lean, whether they would have registered anyway, how many of them will vote, how they'll vote, etc. Celebrity endorsements in general elections rarely have any sort of detectable effect in the end.
These caveats are True...thx Seth
Great explanation, and I'm still nervous.
Seth, I will go out on a limb and say it will be a nail bitter right up till they start counting the votes. However this is guaranteed, if Harris looses the rural counties in Michigan Pennsylvania and Wisconsin 90-10 it’s going to be a long night for the Uniparty. Bonus: The Uniparty is going to be crying in their organic environmental sustainability beer because they will lose North Carolina. Speaking of which: how about let’s have you put a Coors on the table and I will sit down a Strohs, winner gets both. 😉😉😉
You wrote:
“In 2016, there was every reason to expect a substantial win by Hillary Clinton.”
I don’t think this is true, and I think it shows why polls are not enough to make predictions.
I volunteered for Sanders’ campaign in 2016 and was calling into states like PA and WI quite early in the primary process. I thought there were several warning signs for Clinton then, like news stories about thousands of rust-belt voters changing party affiliation from D to R, presumably so they could vote for Trump in the GOP primaries.
Later, volunteering for Clinton’s campaign, it was common for calls going to PA, to what records showed were D registrants, to be answered by pro-Trump voters.
It’s true that he only won by a few tens of thousands of votes giving him an EC win, but I can say that based on my experience as a campaign volunteer that I was very worried that she was going to lose based on what I was seeing at that individual voter level.
There was definitely some of that, but it wasn't really systematic or consistent. There was also other evidence of prominent Republicans endorsing Clinton or refusing to vote for Trump, poor attendance and disorganization at the RNC, etc. Like, we know in hindsight what the better clues were, but it was not at all obvious in the moment.
e.g. stories like this one, among others
https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/report-46000-pa-democrats-become-republicans-due-to-trump/