Great podcast - a big difference regarding possible post-election violence is that in this election Trump isn’t in the Whitehouse, with all the enormous power of the state at his elbow. He can’t pardon anyone, he can’t control policing, he doesn’t control the DoJ. He does have his neo-blackshirts, but they’re all at risk of lengthy prison terms, and the rich ones being flight risks, might not make bail.
The gender gap in early voters is widening and breaking new records. It is plus 10% in most key swing states. According to Brookings this is nothing but very good news for Harris (duh!). The Supreme Court's overturning of Roe is going to hand the vote to Harris. What the Justices do afterwards with all the plots the Republicans have in play is another matter.
I’ve sat through many elections and I ask one simple question: if polls are so inaccurate why is it always only the side behind in the polls who are whinging about how wrong the polls always are? If the polls are always so wrong, why isn’t the side in the lead ignoring them? For that matter, why do all parties in all elections continue to commission polls if the industry is so inaccurate?
Simple answer: it isn’t. If you look at all polls rather than cherry picking, the American polls did a very good job in all recent presidential elections other than 2016. Not to mention the midterms of 2018 and 2020. UK polls have been less reliable, but to demonstrate how good polls can be, consider that the UK general election exit polls have been incredibly accurate since 1997, always within 10 seats.
And to add - reputable polling aggregators like 538 or Silver Bulletin don’t project a runaway victory for Trump. They all have a very close race, generally with Trump a hair’s breadth ahead. Does that sound completely ridiculous to anyone who’s seen how evenly divided America has been the last few cycles? Not to me.
Well you could look at the results of the last three Presidential elections, where both major parties got between 46 and 51% of the vote each time. Compare that to 1988, 1984, 1972 etc. Similarly 2008 is the only election this century where both sides haven’t got at least 200 electoral college votes, whereas both sides getting 200+ EC votes only happened once in the last nine elections in the 20th century.
I'm trying to decide if I want to listen to this podcast, I'm leaning no. There is no reason to think Harris will win, bigly or not. The summary of the podcast is deeply suspect - according to Ben Cohen, billionaires are fooling us, and Kamala Harris "has run an immaculate campaign." I find both claims highly suspect from the get-go, and while reproductive rights are very important this election, so is immigration. Harris has consciously decided not to break, in even the smallest way, from Biden, and she should have done so with regard to immigration. We are admittedly in an odd place: the U.S. economy is doing very well overall, yet many people feel differently, and no one is exactly sure why, although there is a set of plausible explanations out there. And to boot, Trump has a history of out-performing polls. I don't buy it. Maybe I will listen with an open mind, but I think Nick has engaged in a bit of wishful thinking about this election before. My take says an incredibly close race. No, billionaires are not fooling me into pessimism. It is what is it is.
If Trump has a history of outperforming polls, how come he's lost every election since 2016? And conversely, the Democrats have won elections since 2016 despite underperforming in the polls. Might not those facts sway your feelings? And maybe you should dig into the seventy plus pro-Republican polls (as in, they are poor quality polls that favor Trump) since August that game the polling averages you are so convinced by? Some of them boast openly about why they are doing it. It's a scandal that journalists have not kept you better informed. If you strip those polls out of the averages and rely upon god quality independent polling,, Harris has a healthy 3-5% lead.
Brian Karem over at the Atlantic has just published a great piece dissecting why political polling has become so unreliable. It's a shame he didn't write it six months ago, but at least he's put pen to paper:
Well, Martin, obviously you are vastly better informed than me. It is indeed sad that I am so underinformed, my critical thinking skills warped by journalists. Thank you Martin, whoever you are.
Just look at the way Bill Clinton was treated in the 90s compared to how Trump has been treated is terrible enough as it is before you even remember that Brett Kavanaugh worked for Ken Starr during the impeachment process and special counsel investigation
Great show and, at last, someone is pointing out that it's reproductive rights that will settle this. Punditry is dominated by men. Pollsters are predominantly men. Politicians are predominantly men. Commenters on this blog are predominantly men. Hardly any of them ever mention Dobbs. Yet it is women who have predominantly rushed to register to vote post-Dobbs. The percentage increase is huge. And if you're a Gen Z first-time voter (a huge proportion are intending to vote Harris) of either gender, then pollsters exclude you because you are not historically a LV (likely voter). That matters because most polls only include LVs or RVs (registered voters). You can see why polls are tricky. They can only react in their modelling to what happened last election. Also, you never see their raw data. If you did, you'd be shocked at how much manipulation (AKA guesswork) goes into the final result.
Nick, it would be great if you could do a piece on what will happen after Election Day. As your guest pointed out, the next Big Lie is being built and Trump-leaning pollsters are laying its foundations. The vote itself is only the first half of the battle. It wil continue until the inauguration. Armies of lawyers have been recruited already. Maybe you could do a deep dive into the Red Wave pollsters who have learnt how to game the polling aggregators and other ploys the Republicans are preparing? When Harris wins the result will be challenged in every way possible. Texas AG Ken Paxton is already suing the federal government over spurious claims of non-citizens voting. It will get a lot worse.
I can only say in 2016, the far away best, candidate "won" the most votes, despite Comey's late "email investigation" opened... (Innocent! But a more damning Trump one, not mentioned)
Enough to tip the gross Electoral College scam? Uncertain, but probably.
2000 - another, if anything, worse scam that probably did as much to harm the world.
Both "stolen" both gracefully conceded quickly (If questioned) Real democracy then... now?
Great podcast - a big difference regarding possible post-election violence is that in this election Trump isn’t in the Whitehouse, with all the enormous power of the state at his elbow. He can’t pardon anyone, he can’t control policing, he doesn’t control the DoJ. He does have his neo-blackshirts, but they’re all at risk of lengthy prison terms, and the rich ones being flight risks, might not make bail.
The gender gap in early voters is widening and breaking new records. It is plus 10% in most key swing states. According to Brookings this is nothing but very good news for Harris (duh!). The Supreme Court's overturning of Roe is going to hand the vote to Harris. What the Justices do afterwards with all the plots the Republicans have in play is another matter.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-gender-gaps-could-tip-the-presidential-race-in-2024/
I’ve sat through many elections and I ask one simple question: if polls are so inaccurate why is it always only the side behind in the polls who are whinging about how wrong the polls always are? If the polls are always so wrong, why isn’t the side in the lead ignoring them? For that matter, why do all parties in all elections continue to commission polls if the industry is so inaccurate?
Simple answer: it isn’t. If you look at all polls rather than cherry picking, the American polls did a very good job in all recent presidential elections other than 2016. Not to mention the midterms of 2018 and 2020. UK polls have been less reliable, but to demonstrate how good polls can be, consider that the UK general election exit polls have been incredibly accurate since 1997, always within 10 seats.
And to add - reputable polling aggregators like 538 or Silver Bulletin don’t project a runaway victory for Trump. They all have a very close race, generally with Trump a hair’s breadth ahead. Does that sound completely ridiculous to anyone who’s seen how evenly divided America has been the last few cycles? Not to me.
The mid-terms of 2022 of course, not 2020.
Analysis is a weapon... who owns polling companies..? In the UK it's James Cleverley and Lord Bloody Ashcroft.
And believing the US is divided... or as divided.. as you say is who's narrative?
Well you could look at the results of the last three Presidential elections, where both major parties got between 46 and 51% of the vote each time. Compare that to 1988, 1984, 1972 etc. Similarly 2008 is the only election this century where both sides haven’t got at least 200 electoral college votes, whereas both sides getting 200+ EC votes only happened once in the last nine elections in the 20th century.
I blooming well hope you are right!
If he wins, he wins. If he loses, obviously the elite have stolen the election.
I'm trying to decide if I want to listen to this podcast, I'm leaning no. There is no reason to think Harris will win, bigly or not. The summary of the podcast is deeply suspect - according to Ben Cohen, billionaires are fooling us, and Kamala Harris "has run an immaculate campaign." I find both claims highly suspect from the get-go, and while reproductive rights are very important this election, so is immigration. Harris has consciously decided not to break, in even the smallest way, from Biden, and she should have done so with regard to immigration. We are admittedly in an odd place: the U.S. economy is doing very well overall, yet many people feel differently, and no one is exactly sure why, although there is a set of plausible explanations out there. And to boot, Trump has a history of out-performing polls. I don't buy it. Maybe I will listen with an open mind, but I think Nick has engaged in a bit of wishful thinking about this election before. My take says an incredibly close race. No, billionaires are not fooling me into pessimism. It is what is it is.
If Trump has a history of outperforming polls, how come he's lost every election since 2016? And conversely, the Democrats have won elections since 2016 despite underperforming in the polls. Might not those facts sway your feelings? And maybe you should dig into the seventy plus pro-Republican polls (as in, they are poor quality polls that favor Trump) since August that game the polling averages you are so convinced by? Some of them boast openly about why they are doing it. It's a scandal that journalists have not kept you better informed. If you strip those polls out of the averages and rely upon god quality independent polling,, Harris has a healthy 3-5% lead.
Brian Karem over at the Atlantic has just published a great piece dissecting why political polling has become so unreliable. It's a shame he didn't write it six months ago, but at least he's put pen to paper:
The Truth About Polling (We don’t know what we think we know about how Americans will vote.) https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/presidential-polls-unreliable/680408/?utm_source=feed
Well, Martin, obviously you are vastly better informed than me. It is indeed sad that I am so underinformed, my critical thinking skills warped by journalists. Thank you Martin, whoever you are.
Re: The judges discussion
Just look at the way Bill Clinton was treated in the 90s compared to how Trump has been treated is terrible enough as it is before you even remember that Brett Kavanaugh worked for Ken Starr during the impeachment process and special counsel investigation
Yes please on your upcoming post. Horse-race journalism = horse-shit journalism.
Great show and, at last, someone is pointing out that it's reproductive rights that will settle this. Punditry is dominated by men. Pollsters are predominantly men. Politicians are predominantly men. Commenters on this blog are predominantly men. Hardly any of them ever mention Dobbs. Yet it is women who have predominantly rushed to register to vote post-Dobbs. The percentage increase is huge. And if you're a Gen Z first-time voter (a huge proportion are intending to vote Harris) of either gender, then pollsters exclude you because you are not historically a LV (likely voter). That matters because most polls only include LVs or RVs (registered voters). You can see why polls are tricky. They can only react in their modelling to what happened last election. Also, you never see their raw data. If you did, you'd be shocked at how much manipulation (AKA guesswork) goes into the final result.
Nick, it would be great if you could do a piece on what will happen after Election Day. As your guest pointed out, the next Big Lie is being built and Trump-leaning pollsters are laying its foundations. The vote itself is only the first half of the battle. It wil continue until the inauguration. Armies of lawyers have been recruited already. Maybe you could do a deep dive into the Red Wave pollsters who have learnt how to game the polling aggregators and other ploys the Republicans are preparing? When Harris wins the result will be challenged in every way possible. Texas AG Ken Paxton is already suing the federal government over spurious claims of non-citizens voting. It will get a lot worse.
I can only say in 2016, the far away best, candidate "won" the most votes, despite Comey's late "email investigation" opened... (Innocent! But a more damning Trump one, not mentioned)
Enough to tip the gross Electoral College scam? Uncertain, but probably.
2000 - another, if anything, worse scam that probably did as much to harm the world.
Both "stolen" both gracefully conceded quickly (If questioned) Real democracy then... now?
'More likely than not to win'? That means more likely to win. Not the conclusion of the article.
That phrase needs to be read in its entire context:
"He casts doubt on the poll-driven narrative that Trump is gaining and is more likely than not to win the US presidential election."