Polls tell us that the current election is exactly--to a T, state-by-state, exactly--where the 2020 election ended. I find that mathematically implausible.
This is a great column David -- and I'll be interested in Julia and Jonathan's response post-APSA. I think Jonathan is right that this is a special cycle and we should be wary. IMHO, this is not like baseball because teams change more than voters in a year but it does seem bizarre for it to be so precise. Polarization has led to more "team" voting and that would explain some consistency as "red" or "blue" voters cannot imagine crossing party lines. But that doesn't explain those in the middle.
Given what we're seeing (special elections + Washington primary + polling), I expect we'll see the 2020 presidential election map plus North Carolina in the D column.
My sense is that Harris will benefit in the election from Dems who will turn out to vote instead of staying home as they might have done under Biden. That benefit isn't going to be captured in a poll. Liz Cheyney notwithstanding, the vast majority of 2020 Trump voters are not going to flip to Harris. Hence the static polls.
Whose Substack did I read that said to look at the changes in voter registrations and not at the polls? (I'm reading too much when I should be working.) It was said to be far more indicative of the outcomes than the polls.
That said, I'll take any blue wave good news I can find.
This is a great column David -- and I'll be interested in Julia and Jonathan's response post-APSA. I think Jonathan is right that this is a special cycle and we should be wary. IMHO, this is not like baseball because teams change more than voters in a year but it does seem bizarre for it to be so precise. Polarization has led to more "team" voting and that would explain some consistency as "red" or "blue" voters cannot imagine crossing party lines. But that doesn't explain those in the middle.
Well, we know from Washington primary results that the election should land somewhere (in terms of D+ margin) between 2020 and 2018. Special election results (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ajyphWQru9TgDDiBe8kvEmApBEXND2wl9MVaxi1dndk/edit?gid=995309150#gid=995309150) are telling us the same thing. Polling is landing there, too, if you account for margin of error.
Given what we're seeing (special elections + Washington primary + polling), I expect we'll see the 2020 presidential election map plus North Carolina in the D column.
My sense is that Harris will benefit in the election from Dems who will turn out to vote instead of staying home as they might have done under Biden. That benefit isn't going to be captured in a poll. Liz Cheyney notwithstanding, the vast majority of 2020 Trump voters are not going to flip to Harris. Hence the static polls.
Whose Substack did I read that said to look at the changes in voter registrations and not at the polls? (I'm reading too much when I should be working.) It was said to be far more indicative of the outcomes than the polls.
That said, I'll take any blue wave good news I can find.
Thanks, David, for questioning.