I always enjoy reading the comments here but had to stop tonight. All the ifs-and-whats, poll predictions, analysis, stomach churning, spitballing and hand wringing. I get it, but not now, my fellow Americans. The shock and horror of waking to the results of the 2016 election is still too raw. So I'm saving myself for election night.
Off topic, but about the Election Night straitjacket attire - how awful to have an itchy nose and not be able to scratch it. That would drive me deeper into madness. It has made me a failure at meditation.
As an independent voter who has done a deep dive on polling this election cycle, I can tell you right now that Kamala is in deep trouble. My thoughts...
1) Most polls that people follow are 'public', meaning they are poorly-funded and short-term, typically commissioned by media outlets or universities with a bias (both liberal and conservative). The absolute best polls are done by the campaigns themselves (internal polls) or by a few select public pollsters who are better at two things... 1) Having better accuracy on the party breakdown % of the electorate, and 2) reducing response bias. On the former, Gallup, who has been the most accurate over the past 4-5 presidential cycles has republicans +4 as of last week. Most of the major public polls (including far left Morning Consult) still have democrats up. This is why Trump always underperforms in most public polls. On the latter, once Kamala was installed, you had a cadre of academic elites and college educated women who were manic, if not desperate, to participate in polls (hear my voice!). This resulted in a response bias where lower income, less responsive democrat voters (who are pivoting to Trump - think black and hispanic men) were ignored while the college educated whites were overweighted. The net result was an avalanche of public polls that showed enthusiasm for Kamala while showing she had a strong lead. The painful truth for most of you here is that Kamala never really had any lead, it was smoke and mirrors. If you want to bite the bullet and do something difficult, you can start watching '2Way', led by Mark Halperin. He is, hands down, one of the most well-connect Washington insiders who is also insanely unbiased. As of now, his sources, both internal republicans and democrats, are telling him Trump would win if the election was today. Second, start following (admittedly conservative) pollster Rich Baris (The People's Pundit) and Mark Mitchell (Rasmussen). Both care more about being correct in their polls vs their personal desired outcomes. Both offer multiple podcasts per week to review and dissect every poll that comes out and tell you what is good and what is bad. The best polls you should follow are AtlasIntel, Trafalgar Group, Rasmussen, and Big Data Poll. Yes, their practitioners lean right, but their results over the past several cycles are more accurate than Washington Post, NY Times, Fox, etc.
Second, the betting markets have moved HARD against Kamala, both nationally and in every swing state. The results are consistent on Polymarket, Kalshi, and BetOnline. A bet I made several weeks ago for Trump to win the national vote is already moving towards Trump (meaning odds are moving in his favor).
I am not saying any of this to rub salt in an open wound, but trying to pragmatically communicate some additional sources of valuable information if you only watch MSNBC, CNN, etc.
Do I think Trump is a lock for the win? No. Can anything happen? Yes. If I had to put odds on the election now (barring a further surprise), it would be Trump 85% the Electoral College and 60% Trump for the popular vote. And I put my money where my mouth is.
LOL. Halperin is nearly a mouthpiece for GOP arguments. You cannot seriously cite Rasmussen as a valid poll when it's literally part of the con's campaign. LOL. Just ROTFLMAO.
Amazingly, you miss the obvious reason for the flooding of the zone with all of these GOP leaning polls -- it gives the con the excuse he wants to claim victory.
Also, and I don't even track polls but know this -- it was support for Biden and Democrats that was undercounted in 2020 and 2022. I'm still sane enough to remember 2 years ago and watching the GOP attempt the exact same playbook -- rigged, biased polls flooding the news -- to suppress democratic turnout and to continue to feed the stop the steal long con.
So, da, komrade, remove potato from bin number 2: substandard but edible.
You might be right. I have no idea. I suspect you have little idea, either. Polls have been wrong in both directions over the last few election cycles, so while I don't doubt your research, I don't have a ton of confidence in any polls other than to show general trends, and it seems like the trends indicate that it's very close.
Hi Michael... here's another interesting barometer. Trump has been on nine major podcasts in the last 3 months; including All-in (Silicon Valley), Dave Ramsey (personal finance), Lex Friedman (mostly science/tech), and several 'bro' podcasts as well (Bryson DeChambeau, Theo Vonn, Logan Paul, etc.) Just on YouTube alone, these nine podcasts have a cumulative 50+ million views, or a 5+ million average per. On most of these channels, Trump's podcast is either the most popular or in the top-5 in views in just the past few weeks to months, outpacing episodes 1 to 5 years old. Kamala went on 'Call Her Daddy', arguably one of the top podcasts in the world (ranked 4th on all platforms in Q2 this year). That episode on YouTube is sitting at 650k views and the 17th most popular episode on the channel. This is obviously apples-to-cars when it comes to polls, but this tells you where the eyeballs are and what people want to watch. Ultimately, if T does win, I think this will have played a role.
I do. I have actual work to do and you seem convinced of your own singular correctness, so I'll keep this elucidation brief as possible.
1. You said, "Most polls ... are ... poorly-funded and short-term, typically commissioned by media outlets or universities with a bias." (This is why I used that word in my first reply that Michael called me out on, above.) You're just not informed. The big media-conducted polls (WSJ/NBC or NYT/Siena polls, etc) are conducted by industry professionals and not with a programmed bias toward the politics of the orgs themselves. You claim those polls are biased because of the media orgs who sponsor them...but then you turn around and, somewhat comically, claim that pollsters hired by the campaigns themselves are the most accurate.
So, in your world, the media polls are biased but the campaign polls are not. Yes, campaign polls can be very good. But they can also not be.
2. You present all your opinions as facts, which is a sign of someone trying hard to influence rather than convince. Which is why I called you Vlad, facetiously.
3. You then go on to claim that after Kamala was "installed," as if she were office flooring, that "academic elites and college educated women who were manic" (once again, telling word choice, bud!) managed to manipulate pollsters who overweighted their "manic" enthusiasm for Harris and underweighted "lower income" Dem voters. To which I would point out, you've got to be bloody joking, bud.
4. You also start your post with the declaration that Harris is in "deep trouble" and preface it by stating you're a self-declared expert "independent" who knows all about polling. Later on, you reluctantly provide us with the "painful truth" — your truth, no doubt, since you've already put money down on a Trump pop vote win — that any Harris momentum was "smoke and mirrors" by those darned liberal media orgs and their liberal pollsters. If only we could be as prescient as you, bud.
5. You said, "The best polls you should follow are AtlasIntel, Trafalgar Group, Rasmussen, and Big Data Poll. Yes, their practitioners lean right, but their results over the past several cycles are more accurate than Washington Post, NY Times, Fox, etc." Yeah no. But you seem very interested in either being right or influencing other people to think you are. So how about you show your work: what facts do you have that show your preferred polls have been demonstrably more accurate, over "several cycles," than the media polls?
6. "A bet I made several weeks ago for Trump to win the national vote..." You buried the lede, bud. Who's biased now? You've got skin in this game. Just further evidence to take what you wrote and toss it in the garbage.
7. You presume either the OP or his audience cocoon themselves in liberal media like MSNBC. A little too presumptuously condescending, bud. It makes your argument seem desperate.
8. You end up saying anything could happen. Kind of takes the fire out of your entire argument claiming that "X polls good, Y polls bad, me know better than you, etc." The fact is you don't know. You waste a lot of words trying to sound like you do, only to admit at the end that you don't.
Good evening Paul. I joined this thread as I respect Michael's open and unbiased discourse. I do not see eye-to-eye with him on most issues, but I sincerely respect his ability to call a spade a spade, even if it's a negative for his side. With that said, I presented my opinion. I never stated it was fact. If that was your impression, that is on you. Michael read my comment and respectfully took an acceptably ambiguous position, which I have no issues with and think is totally fair under the circumstances . If you don't agree with me, that is fine, I love to share my opinion and read other's counterpoints. Your response did not specifically counter any of my opinions and it reads as someone coming from a hyper-defensive position, and not in the spirit of honest discourse.
Not backing down. No change in tone. You’re projecting and triggered by what I wrote. That’s on you. See you on 11/6. Oh… Trump is nearly 2-to-1 on Polymarket as of this evening. And if I’m wrong and Kamala wins, this thread will be the first place I come to fall on my sword and admit I was wrong.
What I find truly perplexing is that there's almost no public conversation about Trump almost certainly having a significant mental illness — that of malignant narcissism or narcissistic personality disorder. We've had 9 years of extremely consistent pattern behavior that maps directly onto almost all of the telltale signs. Yet the outrage and surprise and bafflement about Trump's behavior seems to still originate from a baseline assumption that he's mentally healthy but just a jerk.
It has been akin to that feeling of a very strong sneeze that just keeps building in your sinuses. It edges closer to the blowing point but no matter how you tilt your head or control your breathing, it just won’t go. Then you realize this sneeze may have a potential for aneurism due to sheer force. I just wish I could sneeze already. It might explode my brain and kill me but maybe that wouldn’t be so bad. At least it would be quick.
But yet, two weeks from tomorrow will be rough. I'm hoping we'll be surprised with a landslide, so much so a contesting would be irrelevant. I know. I'm naive. :)
I'm one of the many in the correct column of things to say they're wrong. :) Facts are not a liberal conspiracy. Facts exist outside of our perception of them. The trick is to line up your views as close as you can to them.
As a Judge of Election, it will be a VERY long day and all I'll know is the results from one precinct. Probably won't get home until after 10pm where there will be a very anxious dawg needing comfort. I will be needing beer.
I anticipate breaking my weed embargo (been trying to get a lot of writing done) so as not to come entirely unglued when the con declares victory around Noon and the various Gravy Meal Team Sixes begin to live out their paranoid fantasy of "protecting America."
You can tell how badly it's going for the con's campaign, by the increasing volume of the screaching about "rigged" and the avalanche of poles paid for by the GOP so the con has something to point to as a "reason" for the never-ended attempt to overthrow the government for christo-fascisms backed by some fucking bizarre right wing tech bros like Peter Theil and Musky.
Thanks for the reality check, depressing though it is. It's good to remember what we're likely in for. I really miss the good old days when the person who won the popular vote was the same as the person who won the electoral vote and a civil concession speech was delivered Tuesday night.
Unlike most I plan to binge a series on streaming. Occasionally I may flip over to check the vote, but honestly, my emotional health cannot take the machinations of pundits, reporters, voters and polls yammering.
I voted Friday a day after returning from Europe. Watching the foolishness won't affect the outcome. Wednesday will tell me who won the popular vote and who won the inane electoral vote. Then the same pundits, reporters, voters and polls analysts will ramble on for days. Why? How? Who? The Orange Caligula will cry foul if he loses by a hair or a lot. Or he will bask in his razor thin electoral win.
Sadly I can't leave Georgia. I have aged out as a retired person and no sane country wants me. My kids and grandkids are here, for better or worse. I will likely die here.
As a Boomer who witnessed a whole lot of shit in my decades, I cringe pondering what my country truly is. What it always was underneath a veneer sickens me. The misrepresentations and lies of my youth have sullied my view of this beautiful country (?) or more likely 50 fiefdoms that pretend to be a unified entity but in reality despise one another vying to bring businesses to their states.
Other countries find us odd. America is odd. And our system sucks. Other countries' systems suck, but some systems suck more than others.
I won't live long enough to pass with a sense that order and reason pulled through at the end. Maybe it never will. To say my hearts breaks grossly understates my pain.
Hope you and yours do see a better world at the end. If I contributed to the current mess, I apologize.
My one hope today is that Harris wins. Undoubtedly she will win the popular vote. That doesn't matter. Not really. It should, but in America it doesn't. Now to pick a series for election night.
Watching something unrelated seems like a fine idea, and I would copy it, but I know myself well enough to know I'd just be lying to myself if I said I was going to do anything but stay glued to the new stations starting around 7pm.
Blippity bloopity election maps indeed! lol!
I've got two fresh bottles of scotch and irish whisky. Gummies. I like the idea if a serial to watch or else I'm doing genealogy ALL NIGHT.
dear michael,
meaningful piece as always.
"Truly, deeply maddening" is a very funny phrase.
thank you for sharing!
love
myq
"Truly, deeply maddening." Yes, it is.
I always enjoy reading the comments here but had to stop tonight. All the ifs-and-whats, poll predictions, analysis, stomach churning, spitballing and hand wringing. I get it, but not now, my fellow Americans. The shock and horror of waking to the results of the 2016 election is still too raw. So I'm saving myself for election night.
Off topic, but about the Election Night straitjacket attire - how awful to have an itchy nose and not be able to scratch it. That would drive me deeper into madness. It has made me a failure at meditation.
Dropped my ballot of this morning. Now I stress eat election pizza for 2 weeks.🫣
As an independent voter who has done a deep dive on polling this election cycle, I can tell you right now that Kamala is in deep trouble. My thoughts...
1) Most polls that people follow are 'public', meaning they are poorly-funded and short-term, typically commissioned by media outlets or universities with a bias (both liberal and conservative). The absolute best polls are done by the campaigns themselves (internal polls) or by a few select public pollsters who are better at two things... 1) Having better accuracy on the party breakdown % of the electorate, and 2) reducing response bias. On the former, Gallup, who has been the most accurate over the past 4-5 presidential cycles has republicans +4 as of last week. Most of the major public polls (including far left Morning Consult) still have democrats up. This is why Trump always underperforms in most public polls. On the latter, once Kamala was installed, you had a cadre of academic elites and college educated women who were manic, if not desperate, to participate in polls (hear my voice!). This resulted in a response bias where lower income, less responsive democrat voters (who are pivoting to Trump - think black and hispanic men) were ignored while the college educated whites were overweighted. The net result was an avalanche of public polls that showed enthusiasm for Kamala while showing she had a strong lead. The painful truth for most of you here is that Kamala never really had any lead, it was smoke and mirrors. If you want to bite the bullet and do something difficult, you can start watching '2Way', led by Mark Halperin. He is, hands down, one of the most well-connect Washington insiders who is also insanely unbiased. As of now, his sources, both internal republicans and democrats, are telling him Trump would win if the election was today. Second, start following (admittedly conservative) pollster Rich Baris (The People's Pundit) and Mark Mitchell (Rasmussen). Both care more about being correct in their polls vs their personal desired outcomes. Both offer multiple podcasts per week to review and dissect every poll that comes out and tell you what is good and what is bad. The best polls you should follow are AtlasIntel, Trafalgar Group, Rasmussen, and Big Data Poll. Yes, their practitioners lean right, but their results over the past several cycles are more accurate than Washington Post, NY Times, Fox, etc.
Second, the betting markets have moved HARD against Kamala, both nationally and in every swing state. The results are consistent on Polymarket, Kalshi, and BetOnline. A bet I made several weeks ago for Trump to win the national vote is already moving towards Trump (meaning odds are moving in his favor).
I am not saying any of this to rub salt in an open wound, but trying to pragmatically communicate some additional sources of valuable information if you only watch MSNBC, CNN, etc.
Do I think Trump is a lock for the win? No. Can anything happen? Yes. If I had to put odds on the election now (barring a further surprise), it would be Trump 85% the Electoral College and 60% Trump for the popular vote. And I put my money where my mouth is.
LOL. Halperin is nearly a mouthpiece for GOP arguments. You cannot seriously cite Rasmussen as a valid poll when it's literally part of the con's campaign. LOL. Just ROTFLMAO.
Amazingly, you miss the obvious reason for the flooding of the zone with all of these GOP leaning polls -- it gives the con the excuse he wants to claim victory.
Also, and I don't even track polls but know this -- it was support for Biden and Democrats that was undercounted in 2020 and 2022. I'm still sane enough to remember 2 years ago and watching the GOP attempt the exact same playbook -- rigged, biased polls flooding the news -- to suppress democratic turnout and to continue to feed the stop the steal long con.
So, da, komrade, remove potato from bin number 2: substandard but edible.
You might be right. I have no idea. I suspect you have little idea, either. Polls have been wrong in both directions over the last few election cycles, so while I don't doubt your research, I don't have a ton of confidence in any polls other than to show general trends, and it seems like the trends indicate that it's very close.
Hi Michael... here's another interesting barometer. Trump has been on nine major podcasts in the last 3 months; including All-in (Silicon Valley), Dave Ramsey (personal finance), Lex Friedman (mostly science/tech), and several 'bro' podcasts as well (Bryson DeChambeau, Theo Vonn, Logan Paul, etc.) Just on YouTube alone, these nine podcasts have a cumulative 50+ million views, or a 5+ million average per. On most of these channels, Trump's podcast is either the most popular or in the top-5 in views in just the past few weeks to months, outpacing episodes 1 to 5 years old. Kamala went on 'Call Her Daddy', arguably one of the top podcasts in the world (ranked 4th on all platforms in Q2 this year). That episode on YouTube is sitting at 650k views and the 17th most popular episode on the channel. This is obviously apples-to-cars when it comes to polls, but this tells you where the eyeballs are and what people want to watch. Ultimately, if T does win, I think this will have played a role.
Nice try, Vlad. But what you wrote is a bunch of crap.
Once again, I am compelled to remind people that I don't tolerate insults on here.
My apologies, Michael. I didn't think of my comment as an insult when I wrote it.
Care to elucidate?
I do. I have actual work to do and you seem convinced of your own singular correctness, so I'll keep this elucidation brief as possible.
1. You said, "Most polls ... are ... poorly-funded and short-term, typically commissioned by media outlets or universities with a bias." (This is why I used that word in my first reply that Michael called me out on, above.) You're just not informed. The big media-conducted polls (WSJ/NBC or NYT/Siena polls, etc) are conducted by industry professionals and not with a programmed bias toward the politics of the orgs themselves. You claim those polls are biased because of the media orgs who sponsor them...but then you turn around and, somewhat comically, claim that pollsters hired by the campaigns themselves are the most accurate.
So, in your world, the media polls are biased but the campaign polls are not. Yes, campaign polls can be very good. But they can also not be.
2. You present all your opinions as facts, which is a sign of someone trying hard to influence rather than convince. Which is why I called you Vlad, facetiously.
3. You then go on to claim that after Kamala was "installed," as if she were office flooring, that "academic elites and college educated women who were manic" (once again, telling word choice, bud!) managed to manipulate pollsters who overweighted their "manic" enthusiasm for Harris and underweighted "lower income" Dem voters. To which I would point out, you've got to be bloody joking, bud.
4. You also start your post with the declaration that Harris is in "deep trouble" and preface it by stating you're a self-declared expert "independent" who knows all about polling. Later on, you reluctantly provide us with the "painful truth" — your truth, no doubt, since you've already put money down on a Trump pop vote win — that any Harris momentum was "smoke and mirrors" by those darned liberal media orgs and their liberal pollsters. If only we could be as prescient as you, bud.
5. You said, "The best polls you should follow are AtlasIntel, Trafalgar Group, Rasmussen, and Big Data Poll. Yes, their practitioners lean right, but their results over the past several cycles are more accurate than Washington Post, NY Times, Fox, etc." Yeah no. But you seem very interested in either being right or influencing other people to think you are. So how about you show your work: what facts do you have that show your preferred polls have been demonstrably more accurate, over "several cycles," than the media polls?
6. "A bet I made several weeks ago for Trump to win the national vote..." You buried the lede, bud. Who's biased now? You've got skin in this game. Just further evidence to take what you wrote and toss it in the garbage.
7. You presume either the OP or his audience cocoon themselves in liberal media like MSNBC. A little too presumptuously condescending, bud. It makes your argument seem desperate.
8. You end up saying anything could happen. Kind of takes the fire out of your entire argument claiming that "X polls good, Y polls bad, me know better than you, etc." The fact is you don't know. You waste a lot of words trying to sound like you do, only to admit at the end that you don't.
Good evening Paul. I joined this thread as I respect Michael's open and unbiased discourse. I do not see eye-to-eye with him on most issues, but I sincerely respect his ability to call a spade a spade, even if it's a negative for his side. With that said, I presented my opinion. I never stated it was fact. If that was your impression, that is on you. Michael read my comment and respectfully took an acceptably ambiguous position, which I have no issues with and think is totally fair under the circumstances . If you don't agree with me, that is fine, I love to share my opinion and read other's counterpoints. Your response did not specifically counter any of my opinions and it reads as someone coming from a hyper-defensive position, and not in the spirit of honest discourse.
Your change of tone is noted. Not uncommon when someone is called out for masking his/her opinions as facts, as your original reply did.
Next time, maybe start this way instead of as the condescending polling expert you are clearly not. Good day.
Not backing down. No change in tone. You’re projecting and triggered by what I wrote. That’s on you. See you on 11/6. Oh… Trump is nearly 2-to-1 on Polymarket as of this evening. And if I’m wrong and Kamala wins, this thread will be the first place I come to fall on my sword and admit I was wrong.
What I find truly perplexing is that there's almost no public conversation about Trump almost certainly having a significant mental illness — that of malignant narcissism or narcissistic personality disorder. We've had 9 years of extremely consistent pattern behavior that maps directly onto almost all of the telltale signs. Yet the outrage and surprise and bafflement about Trump's behavior seems to still originate from a baseline assumption that he's mentally healthy but just a jerk.
It has been akin to that feeling of a very strong sneeze that just keeps building in your sinuses. It edges closer to the blowing point but no matter how you tilt your head or control your breathing, it just won’t go. Then you realize this sneeze may have a potential for aneurism due to sheer force. I just wish I could sneeze already. It might explode my brain and kill me but maybe that wouldn’t be so bad. At least it would be quick.
But yet, two weeks from tomorrow will be rough. I'm hoping we'll be surprised with a landslide, so much so a contesting would be irrelevant. I know. I'm naive. :)
I'm one of the many in the correct column of things to say they're wrong. :) Facts are not a liberal conspiracy. Facts exist outside of our perception of them. The trick is to line up your views as close as you can to them.
As a Judge of Election, it will be a VERY long day and all I'll know is the results from one precinct. Probably won't get home until after 10pm where there will be a very anxious dawg needing comfort. I will be needing beer.
I anticipate breaking my weed embargo (been trying to get a lot of writing done) so as not to come entirely unglued when the con declares victory around Noon and the various Gravy Meal Team Sixes begin to live out their paranoid fantasy of "protecting America."
You can tell how badly it's going for the con's campaign, by the increasing volume of the screaching about "rigged" and the avalanche of poles paid for by the GOP so the con has something to point to as a "reason" for the never-ended attempt to overthrow the government for christo-fascisms backed by some fucking bizarre right wing tech bros like Peter Theil and Musky.
Thanks for the reality check, depressing though it is. It's good to remember what we're likely in for. I really miss the good old days when the person who won the popular vote was the same as the person who won the electoral vote and a civil concession speech was delivered Tuesday night.
No matter who wins, here's a treat a noted ice cream sandwich connoisseur such as yourself can enjoy on inauguration day:
"New Peanut Butter M&M's Ice Cream Sandwiches are headed to stores soon! They have peanut butter ice cream and sugar cookies with M&M's Minis."
https://www.instagram.com/candyhunting/p/DBPEObbSzKB/
While I am generally an ice cream sandwich purist, those looks delicious.
Unlike most I plan to binge a series on streaming. Occasionally I may flip over to check the vote, but honestly, my emotional health cannot take the machinations of pundits, reporters, voters and polls yammering.
I voted Friday a day after returning from Europe. Watching the foolishness won't affect the outcome. Wednesday will tell me who won the popular vote and who won the inane electoral vote. Then the same pundits, reporters, voters and polls analysts will ramble on for days. Why? How? Who? The Orange Caligula will cry foul if he loses by a hair or a lot. Or he will bask in his razor thin electoral win.
Sadly I can't leave Georgia. I have aged out as a retired person and no sane country wants me. My kids and grandkids are here, for better or worse. I will likely die here.
As a Boomer who witnessed a whole lot of shit in my decades, I cringe pondering what my country truly is. What it always was underneath a veneer sickens me. The misrepresentations and lies of my youth have sullied my view of this beautiful country (?) or more likely 50 fiefdoms that pretend to be a unified entity but in reality despise one another vying to bring businesses to their states.
Other countries find us odd. America is odd. And our system sucks. Other countries' systems suck, but some systems suck more than others.
I won't live long enough to pass with a sense that order and reason pulled through at the end. Maybe it never will. To say my hearts breaks grossly understates my pain.
Hope you and yours do see a better world at the end. If I contributed to the current mess, I apologize.
My one hope today is that Harris wins. Undoubtedly she will win the popular vote. That doesn't matter. Not really. It should, but in America it doesn't. Now to pick a series for election night.
Hacks
I will be doing the same. Probably BBC's Pride & Prejudice...again...
Watching something unrelated seems like a fine idea, and I would copy it, but I know myself well enough to know I'd just be lying to myself if I said I was going to do anything but stay glued to the new stations starting around 7pm.
I know the allure, but my gut can't take it. I didn't watch in 2016 or 2020. Watch for those of us who can't.
Same, same, a hundred times same. 😣