(This is basically the early voting data except swung slightly right to account for the right wing edge on election day. Iowa and New Hampshire are the weakest blue states and Georgia and North Carolina are the weakest red states in early voting right now. Yes this is insanely weird, but fuck it let’s follow this data off the cliff)
Frick it locking in, if the early voting data saw this coming days ago I’m not ignoring what else they have. My prediction. SOMEHOW, THE ORIGINAL SWING STATES RETURNED. WE CAME FOR THEIR FIRST IN LINE SPOTS AND THEY SAID “NO U”
Frick it here’s my prediction. SOMEHOW…the original swing states returned.
This map specifically is from r/KamalaHarris, but there’s an almost identical one from the conservative sub except they removed Iowa as an ‘outlier’.
(Note: I checked this. Virginia is solid blue like just Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and New Mexico is a weaker blue like Michigan, but New Hampshire is as tight as Iowa is and is tight enough it’s meeting the definition for Swing State in polling as of late. Imagine a scenario where Trump loses the Rust Belt badly and suffers massive decline in Iowa, but manages to hold Iowa and pick up New Hampshire. That’s 272-266 for Trump)
Going into next election with two extra swing states is kinda cool tho I guess. Maybe all that rhetoric about changing how primaries and causcuses work and killing their first dibs thing as of late scared em and now they gotta be too important to risk pissing off again so they’re turning themselves into swing states. Not an actual theory, but then again, those are THE two early states…hmmmm…crackpot time
Iowa has been leading blue in this for a few days which is either good or bad news depending on your POV. Good news is it suggests the Selzer Poll isn’t a freak WI+17 event and is genuine. Iowa might be competitive, very competitive. In fact it’s closer than the Rust Belt swing states and most of the sunbelt outside of maybe NC.
The bad news is suggests that this isn’t exactly a nationwide trend(there’s a ton of specific Iowa factors, Tim Walz, Abortion Laws there being the worst in the nation, nobody really paying them much attention since Texas and Florida and Ohio and Alaska were supposed to be the grabbale ones and got lot’s of counter investment), and if you read this data with the assumption it’s very slightly blue skewed and in-person is very slightly red skewed(which is seemingly the case this year) New Hampshire would have a better chance of going red than fucking Pennsylvania.
Imagine the 270-268 scenario except Trump were to win because he picked up New Hampshire and held Iowa by the skin of his teeth even with bad losses in the rust belt. That’s a plausible option now.
It IS a good sign for Harris, but like I said, trying to interpret this nation wide is a bad move. If you did the same thing for Nevada(bluest swing state in 2016 only one Hillary held, second bluest in 2020 only behind Michigan) which is by far the reddest in Early Voting you’d assume Harris was about to get red waved.
All this truly tells us is that the North and Great Lakes region is getting bluer and the Sunbelt is getting redder. Iowa was the reddest of the 4/5 weak red states(People thought Alaska was more gettable than it) and now it might be the bluest. Nevada was the bluest swing state until a month ago and it’s suddenly on track to be the reddest. Arizona was the tightest swing state and now it’s gone hard red, Georgia was safe red until it was dead tight. Trends can break locally without nessacrily indicating a nation swing. Like I said, if you used the ‘Iowa going blue/being close means Kamala sweeps everything’ argument for Nevada you’d be dooming hard.
The early voting data suggests Iowa is alone in this at least on the blue side, and it’s narrow enough the red favored election day would likely take it back. It’s actually about as blue as New Hampshire which…is either a good thing or a bad thing depending on how you expect election day to turnout. (both are less blue percentage wise than the rust belt swing states and both would be swing states by their current ratios if it wasn’t too late to add them).
HOWEVER, I also heed a potential warning sign here. If the Democrats can flip a weak red state(‘weak’, 7 and a half points last time and polling 10 point average prior to this) or even come close, while still losing the Sun Belt(which is what the early voting data points to, and that hinted at Iowa days before this. It’s a bit more blue than final, but way less than 2020, same with election day in reverse) what’s stopping the reverse happening on Election Day(when the republicans are stronger)?
Like, New Mexico or Virginia or New Hampshire or something. If fucking Iowa can go competitive out of nowhere due to a combination of local factors and being ignored by the main party as safe, whilst Sunbelt swingstates hold red(IE: No huge nationwide shift, this is more regional), the reverse is perfectly plausible too. New Mexico is a border state with a ton of overlap with Arizona which has swung to the reddest swing state, Virginia has the most Anti-Democrat third party spread in the entire country(All the left wingers made it and the Libertarians are more left than usual, but no RFK and no Cornell West/Constitution Party to counterbalance) and went more red than expected in 2021. Neither of them have Abortion on the ballot.
Not to fearmonger or anything ,the Iowa data is great news for the Democrats, just, keep this is mind. This year has been an utter rollercoaster of surprises, both sides have been ‘guaranteed’ to win like 3 times each at this point and something else pops up. Iowa going blue only to be undone by Virginia going red wouldn’t surprise me at this point with what a psychotic roller coaster of an election it’s been.
I will say I noticed a couple days ago on Reddit(zero clue the method used tho) that Iowa was the ONLY outlier among Early Voting/Mail In Voting results. All the blue states had blue leanings, all the red states had red leanings, swing states were split: Rust Belt Blue, Sun Belt Red, except for Georgia which was too close to call due to their lack of transparency and overall closeness. Iowa was more blue thanks to early voting. Only outlier.
On the one hand, this poll suggests that wasn’t an outlier. It FEELS weird because Iowa was considered the right most of the ‘weak red’ bloc, Florida and Ohio and Texas were discussed WAY more as potential pickups and got way more polling, Iowa got the least attention of them.
However I also note on the other hand the early voting data suggests Iowa is an outlier and this isn’t suggestive of a Kamala sweep. This could be because-
If you think Iowa indicates that nationwide trends are super wrong then you also have to ignore the early voting data that hinted at a bluer Iowa days ago because everything else on that chart is falling to expectation. That data still has Texas/Florida/Ohio Red and suggests the sun belt is going Red outside of maaaaaaybe Georgia which is tight. There are also a few other Iowa polls all showing it still safely red so it could just be super close/future swing state rather than blue this time.
Maybe it is a nationwide trend, maybe it is, but my gut says it’s a mix of lack of red investment and lack of blue polling interest as it wasn’t as seemingly close as places like Florida or Texas, and two huge Iowa specific factors being extreme anti-abortion laws nearly unrivaled nationally and Tim Walz being from right next door and appealing to the Iowa bloc massively.
What it would signal otherwise is that Tim Walz is doing a great job shoring up the white vote in the Rust Belt and that probably secures Wisconsin which ALSO borders Minnesota and has a lot of the same factors as Iowa. The early voting data says they’re losing the Sun Belt so they need to hold the Rust Belt. Iowa going blue and everything else going to plan would funnily enough make Nevada actually matter again. They’re both worth 6 points so Nevada going red(which otherwise was useless in basically any scenario, Republicans would either win without it or NV wouldn’t save them otherwise) would neutralize Iowa being lost and turn a couple scenarios from narrow losses to narrow wins.
(Oh and RFK Jr couldn’t get off the ballot there, while he DID in Florida/Ohio/Texas. That’s another factor alongside Tim Walz and Draconic Abortion laws for why Iowa specifically)
I will say I noticed a couple days ago on Reddit(zero clue the method used tho) that Iowa was the ONLY outlier among Early Voting/Mail In Voting results. All the blue states had blue leanings, all the red states had red leanings, swing states were split: Rust Belt Blue, Sun Belt Red, except for Georgia which was too close to call due to their lack of transparency and overall closeness. Iowa was more blue thanks to early voting. Only outlier.
On the one hand, this poll suggests that wasn’t an outlier. It FEELS weird because Iowa was considered the right most of the ‘weak red’ bloc, Florida and Ohio and Texas were discussed WAY more as potential pickups and got way more polling, Iowa got the least attention of them.
However I also note on the other hand the early voting data suggests Iowa is an outlier and this isn’t suggestive of a Kamala sweep. This could be because-
If you think Iowa indicates that nationwide trends are super wrong then you also have to ignore the early voting data that hinted at a bluer Iowa days ago because everything else on that chart is falling to expectation. That data still has Texas/Florida/Ohio Red and suggests the sun belt is going Red outside of maaaaaaybe Georgia which is tight. There are also a few other Iowa polls all showing it still safely red so it could just be super close/future swing state rather than blue this time.
Maybe it is a nationwide trend, maybe it is, but my gut says it’s a mix of lack of red investment and lack of blue polling interest as it wasn’t as seemingly close as places like Florida or Texas, and two huge Iowa specific factors being extreme anti-abortion laws nearly unrivaled nationally and Tim Walz being from right next door and appealing to the Iowa bloc massively.
What it would signal otherwise is that Tim Walz is doing a great job shoring up the white vote in the Rust Belt and that probably secures Wisconsin which ALSO borders Minnesota and has a lot of the same factors as Iowa. The early voting data says they’re losing the Sun Belt so they need to hold the Rust Belt. Iowa going blue and everything else going to plan would funnily enough make Nevada actually matter again. They’re both worth 6 points so Nevada going red(which otherwise was useless in basically any scenario, Republicans would either win without it or NV wouldn’t save them otherwise) would neutralize Iowa being lost and turn a couple scenarios from narrow losses to narrow wins.
Nevada was also the bluest of the 7 swing states historically and yet is the reddest in early voting so…trends can swing. The bluest swing state is suddenly the reddest and the reddest of the 4 ‘weak red’ states is suddenly the bluest. Dems are strengthing their black and white women numbers while they bleed Arabs and Hispanic men.
It’s sickly funny in a way that the 268-270 SunBelt RustBelt scenario is probably the most likely Harris win scenario(it’s what the polls are predicting). Had a couple local politicians in Nebraska 2 months ago made a different choice and changed to Winner Take All that would be a 269-269 tie leading to a Trump win.
It’s sickly funny in a way that the 268-270 SunBelt RustBelt scenario is probably the most likely Harris win scenario(it’s what the polls are predicting). Had a couple local politicians in Nebraska 2 months ago made a different choice and changed to Winner Take All that would be a 269-269 tie leading to a Trump win.
It’s also good to note 2008 being second highest was hard carried by Obama, McCain was not pulling record numbers. 2020 was both parties breaking their all time records(though proportionally they both fell a bit short of 2008 Obama). Personally I smell 2008 style numbers. Post-COVID means less people free that day and a bit less wall to wall election exposure, and while Harris is more charismatic than Biden she’s not Obama(Obama wasn’t even supposed to be picked in 2008, but he came in so hard and strong they gave him a shot and he mauled Hillary. Kamala wasn’t fighting her way through a primary she was never supposed to win in a trial by fire like Obama).
Also states have shifted in one way or another. Nevada was the bluest state in 2016 and 2020, only swing state to go blue both times, only one of the modern swing states Hillary held(albeit in 2016 Virginia and New Hampshire and New Mexico were considered Swing States too). This year it’s looking to be a lot more red…hopefully…if it’s still the bluest state that’s game over already. Abortion doesn’t sell well there, state is more male, and it’s mostly older so the women there aren’t super passionate. That and they got hit by COVID and Inflation really really badly and No Tax on Tips is popular. Meanwhile Wisconsin(traditionally the reddest of the rust belt) is being reigned in by Tim Walz to a degree and has been the bluest at several points while Michigan(the bluest state Trump won in 2016) is slipping a bit due to Arab voters.
Calling it being around 2008 Levels, but not 2020 level.
What do you predict Turnout being this year? 2020 was 65.9% of the VEP(Voting Eligable Population). The lowest in the internet era was 2012 at 58%. Average is 2004 and 2016 at 60.1 and 59.3 each, 2008 was the previous high at 61.1
Trump is at 46.7% baseline on 538. His TOTAL in 2020 was 46.8 and 46.1 in 2016. At the current rate it’ll be 46.8-47 by election day. The polls have been extremely good at predicting this baseline, it’s the undecided remainder they suck at guessing(Harris is at 48.1 right now) so Trump is pretty much guaranteed to get more of the Popular Vote then in 2016 or 2020.
It matters when you’re comparing margins of how many Democrats Vs Republicans are being swayed
By the standards of the party, especially after the hard right takeover in 2022 by the Hoppean and Rothbardian types, he absolutely is.
I post this because this saw something funny in Iowa coming days before the Selzer poll