That's what I don't understand. The polls say that Republicans are set to win, but all I hear are Democrats are motivated due to Roe vs Wade and WV v EPA. I did read an article by Nate Silver that said they don't look at current polling to predict elections they use historical election data. But doesn't current polling data effect the election?
Current polling is not particularly informative WRT election results. The election is in November, which means that we are 4 months out. Polling will become more indicative as we get closer to the actual election.
A lot of things can happen between now and November. Small things can have large effects. Any polling more than 30 days outside of the election is kind of pointless when it comes to predicting results.
I am less skeptical about polling than a lot of people because I have actually worked with it in my Grad student says (creating, administering, and analyzing). It is, in general, fairly accurate (even when people do not think it was accurate), at least at the national level.
I haven't read anything current by Silver, but my memory says that it is one of those things that changes over time.
They do a lot of analysis on correlation, and may have found that June polling has much less to do with November results than other underlying factors. That'll change when we're talking about October polling, but even then, their model takes a lot of factors into account and assigns them weighting that changes over time.
But *where* that turnout shows up is the bigger question. If it only shows up in the major cities, they lose. If they've had enough people move to other minor state capitals in the years between '20 and '24, they might be able to win more EC votes. EC votes come from statewide elections, and statewide elections come down to whether the liberal urban core has enough turnout to out-vote the rural conservative core. When the state capital--and a handful of small urban clusters elsewhere in-state--out-vote the rural counties, dems get the state's EC votes (except Maine and Nebraska cuz they're weird). When the rural counties out-vote the state capital, the GOP gets that state's EC votes. If Dems want to win more elections, they'd do well to start moving themselves to more sun belt cities like Phoenix, Atlanta, Santa Fe, Carson City/Las Vegas/Reno, Asheville, Nashville, Denver, Salt Lake City, etc.
That is one of these horrible SCOTUS that should motivate the youngest voters, along with Dobbs. I hesitate to be too optimistic, but the vanguard of this young group seems politically active before voting age, regarding school shootings and climate change. Getting out the youth vote seems very worthwhile.
That's what I don't understand. The polls say that Republicans are set to win, but all I hear are Democrats are motivated due to Roe vs Wade and WV v EPA. I did read an article by Nate Silver that said they don't look at current polling to predict elections they use historical election data. But doesn't current polling data effect the election?
Current polling is not particularly informative WRT election results. The election is in November, which means that we are 4 months out. Polling will become more indicative as we get closer to the actual election.
A lot of things can happen between now and November. Small things can have large effects. Any polling more than 30 days outside of the election is kind of pointless when it comes to predicting results.
I am less skeptical about polling than a lot of people because I have actually worked with it in my Grad student says (creating, administering, and analyzing). It is, in general, fairly accurate (even when people do not think it was accurate), at least at the national level.
I haven't read anything current by Silver, but my memory says that it is one of those things that changes over time.
They do a lot of analysis on correlation, and may have found that June polling has much less to do with November results than other underlying factors. That'll change when we're talking about October polling, but even then, their model takes a lot of factors into account and assigns them weighting that changes over time.
But *where* that turnout shows up is the bigger question. If it only shows up in the major cities, they lose. If they've had enough people move to other minor state capitals in the years between '20 and '24, they might be able to win more EC votes. EC votes come from statewide elections, and statewide elections come down to whether the liberal urban core has enough turnout to out-vote the rural conservative core. When the state capital--and a handful of small urban clusters elsewhere in-state--out-vote the rural counties, dems get the state's EC votes (except Maine and Nebraska cuz they're weird). When the rural counties out-vote the state capital, the GOP gets that state's EC votes. If Dems want to win more elections, they'd do well to start moving themselves to more sun belt cities like Phoenix, Atlanta, Santa Fe, Carson City/Las Vegas/Reno, Asheville, Nashville, Denver, Salt Lake City, etc.
Or remove the electoral college.
Good luck sir.
Terry McAuliffe also contributed to the Dems losses/destruction.
They form circular firing squads and proceed to shoot themselves in the feet.
So... not many of us think the Dems will, or can, save democracy, anymore than Republicans seek to preserve the Republic instead of personal power.
Get ready to believe it.
Shit in one hand, hope in the other. See which one fills up first.
Here's hoping. I'm assuming that Roe being overturned is the big driver?
And the gutting of important EPA standards. Many who are complacent about abortion rights, are very concerned about the environment.
That is one of these horrible SCOTUS that should motivate the youngest voters, along with Dobbs. I hesitate to be too optimistic, but the vanguard of this young group seems politically active before voting age, regarding school shootings and climate change. Getting out the youth vote seems very worthwhile.
Yes.
Because if women are known for anything it's for letting things go. :o
ha ha
You forgot the:
/ducks
tag.