Talk Elections

LOL

()

()

LOL what is this garbage?

LOL when I saw the Nelson-Gillum numbers I just couldn't.

There's no way Donnelly is stuck at 40%.

At least McCaskill is up in something!

What an eclectic mix

What in tarnation?

Garcia no go.

Also have UTDH tied with Wacky Jackey, and Tester +7.

Junkapalooza!

McCaskill won't be the only Democrat to win in those 4 races.

Woo!

If McCaskill is +2 in a Rasmussen poll, she must be winning in a landslide.

We should all called her Landslide McCaskill from now on.

()

The AZ numbers for Ducey and McSally are similar to Fox polls. I would ignore AZ Senate. Why didn't they poll NV or OH

Time for Scott to find a new gig, this polling thing just isn't working out.

Jesus....

This seems like a good time for a 100-hour nap.

Not sure I believe any of those, tbh

*Promptly throws the entire poll in the trash*

This is a bigger mess than Suicide Squad.

At least we know who the new gold standard is if McCaskill wins at the same time that Nelson, Donnelly, and Sinema lose.

And if Gillum wins by 7 while Nelson loses.

Why does 538 have them entered like this? I'm confused.

()

People complain about how little polling there is this year, and then when they get a poll they find every which way to discredit it.

The proper response to every poll is to simply put it in the average, even if it doesn't "look right." It's a good thing when pollsters are honest about their numbers instead of twisting them to line up with the groupthink (known as "herding"). Gut feeling punditry is wrong time and again, yet people never learn.

The problem is that such a scenario is all but impossible.  There's no way McCaskill is winning by 2-3% while Donnelly loses by 2-3%.  Missouri is much more conservative than Indiana and is less likely to vote for Dems downballot.

They're getting the data from the 7-day rolling average on this page (https://www.alliancenrfpoll.com/).

That hypothesis sounds sensible, but there is no limit to the strange and seemingly illogical things that can happen in elections. We may have our ideas of what should be happening, except (as one article put it after an upset some time ago) for the inconvenience of living, breathing individuals at the voting booths who may occasionally have different ideas.

HEITKAMP.
WILL.
WIN.

First of all, I do not refute this numbers on themself, even if Mr Rasmussen has a very partisan reputation. Maybe he oversamples / overestimates republican likely voters. Yet looking at the trends is quite interesting.

About the Florida trend: Scott winning by 3 % with Gillum Winning with 6% in the same sample is contradictory. Yet even CNN recently admitted that the support of Mr Scott was underrated by their penultimate poll. The trends D+ in the gov race and R+ in the senate race make this specific poll rather untrustworthy.

Polling Nevada should be taken with a big grain of salt, as usual. Yet it concurs with Mr Ralstons reporting on the ground with confirming the slight D advantage.

Mrs McCaskill may have luck again as her opponent, Mr Hawley, had blatantly lied in his campaign for AG (he heavily implied he would not be immediately interested in running for higher offices). And as "draining the swamp"-candidate he circumvented his staff by heavily relying on external advisers from out-of-state.

Even as Trump candidates are usually immune against facts as being your generic carreer politician while telling that they are "draining the swamp", this scandal seems to resonate and may well put Mrs Caskill over the finish line. Mrs McCaskill now plays the carpetbegger card, and the trend within the polls implies the success of this strategy.

The senate races in Arizona and Indiana seem possible, yet undecideds seem a bit to high.
Generally, the crosstabs are missing. E g non-white voters in Indiana would be interesting to see after Mr Donnelly's gaffe.

There's no way where McCaskill +2 and Sinema -7

This is Rasmussen--where Trump runs 10 points higher than everyone else thinks.  If this is the case, there's going to a Democratic wipeout on Election Day.

McCaskill would be lucky to lose by single digits if Scott somehow won by 3 simultaneously, lmao. Trash.

I can't even

This just goes to show that Scott Rasmussen's GCB poll from a while back that showed the D's at double digit leads nationwide....was junk!

Throw in Braun +3, especially with record turnout in Lake and Marion Counties.

I'm assuming that bodes well for Donnelly?

This is a 7-Day Tracking Poll which will end Monday Night I believe.

Personally in general I think people have written off McSally too soon. While I don't think she'll win by 7 I still think she has a chance to win.

We'll know pretty early on Tuesday when AZ Polls close and the vote is tabulated if Sinema had any kind of Early Vote lead as most of the Polls are suggesting contracting the Raw Ballot Advantage Republicans seem to enjoy in the State.

I believe McSally is up 5. Republicans have to stay home for Democrats to win Arizona, and we're not seeing that in the early voting.

...or it's possible the Republicans have cannibalized their vote early.

Rasmussen used to be one of the better pollsters. How the mighty have fallen...

That was more than 10 years ago.
Zogby was considered one of the best back then too.

There is not much to cannibalize in AZ as 75-80% will be Mail Vote. By 2020 or 2022 it might 100% just like Oregon and Colorado.

While everyone is looking at the Registration Spread between R and D in AZ I think it's more useful to look at the Raw Ballots. GOP currently leads by 116,009. That means if Sinema gets 96% of Democrats, McSally gets 88% of Republicans Sinema would need to win Independents by 67-33 to be AHEAD in the Early Vote and I seriously doubt she has that Spread.
Tomorrow will be the most important Ballot Update. Watch the Raw Ballots: If it's expanding McSally is in good shape; If it gets under 100K Sinema is in better shape.