Makes me hopeful. Two questions: Will they let us vote? (Thanks Brummie) and... If they do, will we vote? 10-11 pts among registered voters could only translate into 6-7 among likely voters for midterms. Hopefully the enthusiasm gap translates into demos who are normally less likely to vote showing up a bit better.
Yeah but then it becomes "is their model of a likely voter any good." And there's the rub. Sometimes they miss by rather a lot. And there's unexpected stuff too: on the Friday before the election (Bush-Kerry) we had NM won-- we were gonna get it by about 15000 votes. But we still had a couple of days, the canvassers were full of pep, and it was decided to spend the remaining time and effort and money focusing on newly eligible Hispanic males, a Demographic that historically had very poor turnout, and historically voted whichever way their parents voted. Get 'em in the habit of voting so we can energize them next time too was the theory. Well, we got an extra 20000 or so of them out-- but this exact layer of 18-23 year olds turned out to be deeply fearful of gay marriage, and they didn't vote the way their parents did. They voted against the civil union referendum, and for Bush almost in passing-- and we lost the state by a sliver pretty much entirely due to our own efforts...
I have been seeing this pop up on my news feed, and saw a little of it on Spanish TV, I did not want to believe it, but.. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...34/hispanic-latino-voters-trump-polls-turnout http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/democrats-latino-voting-problem-isnt-new-but-its-urgent.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/07/politics/democrats-hispanics-midterm-elections-fault-lines/index.html https://www.rollcall.com/news/polit...atino-voters-angry-at-trump-but-not-mobilized
This. Likely voter models are very accurate for a POTUS cycle election nationally. Less so state by state, which is what happened with highly correlated PA, MI, WI last time. On the other end of the spectrum are primary polls. Even the exits, are more or less LV models because precincts are sampled in a way to produce something representative of LVs. The errors in these polls between Sanders and HRC fueled all sorts of conspiracies in 2016. Normal midterms are somewhere in between. And potential wave midterm voter composition is even more uncertain. I’m skeptical of any LV model that produces a result that is more Dem than the RV model. I think more Dems will turnout, but there is a pretty big gap between the GOP and Dems in midterms. I don’t think that will be fully reversed. But it doesn’t need to be.
For all the talks about R's being energized the numbers the last few days have been pretty dire for them. This trend is clearer now. Generic ballot polls conducted since Kavanaugh was confirmed have not been good for Republicans. All a bit weird because they had a good week of Senate polls and an OK-ish week of House district polls. pic.twitter.com/VWALt1YriO— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) October 14, 2018
It is not surprising. Latinos are a very heterogeneous group. We are all over the map ideologically, and while on average we tend to be to the left of Americans on some issues, like health care and minimum wage, we tend to be to the right on others, like abortion or legalizing drugs. And of course, averages are just that. Many Latinos feel strongly one way or the other about issues. There are differences based on age and gender, economic status, and also between first generation Latinos and those more established in the US. On philosophical issues like the role of government we are sharply divided among ourselves, not unlike the way Americans are. And as far as personal appeal, demagogues with some similarities to Trump have had significant success among the masses in Latino politics over the years. I would say if it wasn't for the fact that the Republicans and Trump have botched the immigration issue so badly -an issue that's significant for a majority of Latinos- you would see a much more even split between the two parties.
I think you hit the nail on the head with the ideological disparities. Some of that is down to religious conservatism on issues like abortion. Some of that is down to how "white" someone may look. Some of that is due to discrepancies between groups in terms of how long they have lived in the country and at what level of educational attainment (Cubans in S FL for example). Politics in countries of origin influence things too. I've noticed that a lot of people who lived under left wing dictatorships tend to be Republicans while those who lived under right wing dictatorships tend to be Democrats. In this respect, Hispanic voters are very different than African American voters, although both vote heavily Dem to varying degrees. On this piece, I think there's a better explanation. Since 1984, with the exception of Dubya (who they tended to like a bit more), Hispanics overall have been remarkably consistent in their voting. A 35 or 40 pt lean toward Dems +/- a few points. There will always be a bloc who votes GOP, but the fact of the matter is most Hispanics aren't well served by GOP policies so they already have something to vote against. Those who are likely to vote already have enough reasons to vote against the GOP, so Trump doesn't move the needle much. I'm not more likely to vote against someone who wants to tie me to a chair douse me in gasoline and light me on fire than someone who wants to shoot me in the face. Worse doesn't provide extra motivation when the option is already very bad. African American voters are similar. The GOP option is so bad, it doesn't really matter if it's worse...it doesn't drum up additional opposition. One story of 2016 was supposedly that AAs didn't turn out. Some votes were suppressed, but in reality, they turned out at rates and Dem leans they have for anyone but Obama. Trump didn't drum up more opposition than Dubya or HW or Bob Dole. There was this narrative that black voters turned out in higher numbers because they feared Roy Moore in AL. Maybe a bit, but not really. They turned out as they always do because GOP leadership in AL is already horrible enough for them. The only thing that works on a group that is already highly partisan to get them to turn out more and vote even more heavily partisan is to give them something to vote for rather something to vote against...in the case of AAs it was for Obama. In the case of fundamental Christians it was Trump as a culture warrior/tough guy. IMO, that's what we're seeing with Hispanics now. Worse policies as we now understand them under Trump isn't going to change how they vote. Voting against something doesn't work on Hispanic people or black people or groups that already get the stakes. It does work on moderate white people and younger voters who are privileged enough to be ambivalent though.
Same goes for Africans. Having come from purely Capitalistic systems they are fine with a lot of pro-business policy but the hate on immigration and the racism toward blacks is often why the don't vote republican.
And of course, not coincidentally, GW was open to immigration reform, although he ultimately failed to get his own party to support him on it.
Good analysis from Greg The lack of coat tails seems to be a major issue A few details in here:A new analysis finds Trump is mostly campaigning in areas he won overwhelmingly.Trump's approval is abysmal in suburban, well-educated House districts.One GOP strategist nails the central challenge: How to convert Trump voters into GOP voters? https://t.co/letjNJBXqY— Greg Sargent (@GregTSargent) October 15, 2018
That was a powerful closing statement.... How it is DONE: speaking authentically and passionately about change, defying labels and ideology, taking the argument TO THE GOP.Congrats @SpanbergerVA07 for SMOKING @DaveBratVA7th. Watch this CLOSING!https://t.co/rnp5cFuu7o— Ronald Klain (@RonaldKlain) October 16, 2018
The Gwinnett absentee ballot accepted and rejected counts and rejection rates by race as of the evening of 10/15 pic.twitter.com/COk5b6J6W9— Michael McDonald (@ElectProject) October 16, 2018 1052240584109305856 is not a valid tweet id
Beto O'Rourke delivery is very solid: pic.twitter.com/xUS9laFnmU— Beto O'Rourke (@BetoORourke) October 17, 2018 I like him, hope he stays around even if he doesn't win in November.
Just be glad that the PC policy is not totally in force, a DIU and a "mean" comment about a women looks (when you are a stupid 19 year old) may derail a candidacy in a decade or 2 in the Democratic party, now in the Republican party DIU, and derogatory comments about women will win you more votes, unless you apologize (like Robert has correctly done), because for republicans apologizing no mater what means you are weak and unworthy.
One can't believe Beto and Ted Cruz are only a couple of years apart. What an asshat Rafael is. Sorry excuse of a human being.
@superdave Thoughts on this? As the article indicates...rural counties are the ones that will be disproportionately affected by the 7a to 7p rule. I’m not sure suppressing rural (Republican?) voting is what the NC legislature had in mind with this. A new law passed by the Republican-controlled legislature in North Carolina will result in nearly 20 percent fewer places to cast votes before Election Day. https://t.co/6DyT5cYgUx— NPR Politics (@nprpolitics) October 17, 2018
You're thinking like an Ohioan, where (I'm guessing, but I'm 99% sure I'm right) your urban population is much much darker than your rural population. That's not true in NC. If you exclude the lily-white mountains, I suspect the urban and rural populations have pretty much the same minority populations. In fact, excluding the mountains, if I had to bet, I'd bet rural NC is darker than urban NC.
This is a really good initiative: North Dakota tribes need $100K to get tribal IDs to voters, after ND Republicans attempt to disenfranchise them. Daily Kos is raising the money for the effort, and WOAH within the first few minutes we're already at $34,000! Let's finish strong: https://t.co/8IORrRlDYi— Markos Moulitsas (@markos) October 17, 2018
NY19 has got a very tight race between an incumbent Republican and the survivor of a 7-way Democratic primary. The Democratic primary was interesting because it featured all of the candidates running to see who was the most leftist on health care. The richest candidate won in the end. But I got the sense that most Democrats were fine with the result as long as it resulted in the Republican losing in November. That race has been extraordinarily close in this highly gerrymandered district. But a few months before the election, a bit actress with no education or experience whatsoever got ballot access as a leftist independent. Now ads are popping up for her candidacy. Am I a crazy conspiracy theorist to assume that she was plucked from obscurity by the Republicans to siphon off 1% of the Democratic vote and give the election to the incumbent? Would it change your answer if I told you she was on the Apprentice?
Democratic candidates for the House have been collecting money contributions like there is no tomorrow. Hopefully it will go to good use! Districts with more educated voters and fewer white ones than the national average have been particularly lucrative for Democrats https://t.co/wdWV9XcwTM— The Economist Data Team (@ECONdailycharts) October 17, 2018
For the 8th straight day (minus Sunday), I came home to a plethora of mailers from Republican candidates for Congress and local offices. Interestingly enough, they were all addressed specifically to my wife, who switched to being a Democrat after Trump was elected (it's such a long story), and me, a man who has voted straight Dem ticket since I could vote, as opposed to just "Resident". I've learned two things from these mailers, other than that they contain blatant lies and half-truths (Did you know Democratic Congressional candidate Scott Wallace hates children who have been sexually abused? I didn't until I got the mailer.): I learned that the Dems in my district don't have the kind of money that GOP candidates do. These mailers obviously cost money that the Dem candidates don't have, otherwise I'd be seeing mailers for Dem candidates. I also learned that the Republicans feel like they're not in a good spot in this election. Just by the sheer number of mailers we're receiving, they're trying to pull out all the stops to get people to vote for Republican candidates. In previous years, we would only see one or two of these mailers, but it was because they had a stronghold on the area. I think that stronghold is slipping away. I think that there's going to be a backlash in my area against the GOP. I see signs for Republican candidates all over, but not in people's yards. I'm growing slightly more confident in the Democrats abilities to take the House, and to take more local offices. I have no confidence in what they'll do once they get into these positions, but I'm starting to believe in a blue wave.
I don't think newspaper endorsements sway public opinion much (who even reads any more, right?), but the Washington Post has endorsed Wexton (D) over Comstock in VA-10. Significant because they endorsed Comstock the last two times.