2024 Pre-Election Political Polls | POLL - Trump would have had 7 point lead over Biden

[superrific]

Good point. Or maybe it was 5 black women and now it’s 15.

If I understand correctly, we are talking about a 262% increase in new registrations of black women under the age of 30 in one particular week, right?

There is no way that level of increase will be even noticeable in the election totals. If there was a 200% increase in new registration totals among black women under 30 for the whole year, maybe. Let's do some back-of-the-envelope calculations. There are 1.4M black people in PA, says Google. There are slightly more females than males, so say 750K is the total black female population. What percent of that is between age 18-30? That's basically one decade and change out of the 7 decades of life expectancy. Let's be generous and say 25% of the black women are of that age. It's now about 200,000 total.

So total voter registration numbers in PA are about 70% of the population is already registered. This is a young cohort, so let's say the % of currently registered voters is 60%. Also assume (generously) that we can in theory raise it up to 75%, let's say, which would be better than the overall national average and basically on par with the most registered states, and assume also that we could do 1/3 of that new registration this election cycle (again, seemingly generous).

That gives us 30,000 voters who might get registered in the near future, and if we can get 1/3 of that this cycle, we'd have 10K new black female registrants for the whole year. They vote 9200-800 for Kamala, that nets us 8400 total votes from new registrations for the entire registration cycle in this cohort. On somewhat generous assumptions.

It's not exactly nothing, but it's not a game changer.

 

[Bigs23]

If I understand correctly, we are talking about a 262% increase in new registrations of black women under the age of 30 in one particular week, right?

There is no way that level of increase will be even noticeable in the election totals. If there was a 200% increase in new registration totals among black women under 30 for the whole year, maybe. Let's do some back-of-the-envelope calculations. There are 1.4M black people in PA, says Google. There are slightly more females than males, so say 750K is the total black female population. What percent of that is between age 18-30? That's basically one decade and change out of the 7 decades of life expectancy. Let's be generous and say 25% of the black women are of that age. It's now about 200,000 total.

So total voter registration numbers in PA are about 70% of the population is already registered. This is a young cohort, so let's say the % of currently registered voters is 60%. Also assume (generously) that we can in theory raise it up to 75%, let's say, which would be better than the overall national average and basically on par with the most registered states, and assume also that we could do 1/3 of that new registration this election cycle (again, seemingly generous).

That gives us 30,000 voters who might get registered in the near future, and if we can get 1/3 of that this cycle, we'd have 10K new black female registrants for the whole year. They vote 9200-800 for Kamala, that nets us 8400 total votes from new registrations for the entire registration cycle in this cohort. On somewhat generous assumptions.

It's not exactly nothing, but it's not a game changer.

It could be the difference.

 

[superrific]

It could be the difference.

It could be, the same way a missed FT in the first half of a basketball game could be the difference between OT and no OT. But if you had money on UNC, would you change your bet if RJ missed a FT in the first half? I don't think it should change our outlook at all. Again, I was using generous assumptions, and also I messed up: I forgot to discount my numbers by share of RVs who actually vote. So take another 25% off that 8400. My guess is, in the real world, there will be fewer than 3000 net votes to Kamala from registering young black women voters.

 

[SnoopRob]

It would wash out in one election cycle or less. Again, there is no law preventing Pubs from winning the popular vote. A big part of the Pubs' national voter deficit is CA -- but that's in part because they don't even try in CA. In 2016, HRC's margin of victory in national votes cast was less than her margin in CA, where she won 61%. If the Pubs could get that down to 55% -- again, by trying! -- that would shave 2 million votes or so off the HRC victory margin and it would have been a nailbiter.

And the Dems win NY with 60%, again because the Pubs don't even try. If the Pubs could get that number to 55%, they would have won in 2016 and 2020 would have been really close.

I don't think it would materially wash out at all in the near future and certainly not in one election cycle.

While your hypothetical about 2016 California/NY seems persuasive on first glance, there's a lot of assumptions you seem to make that I don't think would hold true.

- For California to go from 61% Dem to 55% Dem would take adding 1.7 million votes to the total. Those votes would have to be 100% Pubs with no Dems added. Given that there were 14.2 million votes cast in CA in 2016, what you're suggesting would mean increasing turnout by 7.1% solely from disaffected Pubs.

- For NY to go from 61% Dem to 55% Dem would take adding 610k votes to the total. Those votes would have to be 100% Pubs with no Dems added. Given that there were 7.7 million votes cast in NY in 2016, what you're suggesting would mean increasing turnout by 5.4% solely from disaffected Pubs.

- While it is likely that feeling like one's vote doesn't matter at a state/national level likely does drive down turnout a bit, there is nothing to suggest that it would be nearly as biased against any one party in any particular state. I'm sure that there are Pubs in CA or NY who think that their vote for POTUS is wasted because their candidate will never win the state's electors, but local level races are enough to still get many of those folks to the polls. However, there are likely also Dems in CA/NY who know that their preferred candidate will win their state's electors even without their vote and so they stay home, as well.

- You're also ignoring that whatever difference a national popular vote would make to turnout for Pubs as the minority party in CA/NY, the same would be true for Dems as the minority party in TX/OH/wherever. The current red states would likely see a similar shift as blue states in minority party voting under a popular vote winner and while the red states aren't as populated as the blue states, it would provide some mitigation from whatever would happen in the blue states.

In short, while I think that going to a national popular vote model would likely incentive folks in the minority party in non-competitive states to vote at higher rates, I think it would also incentivize folks in the majority party in those same states to vote at a higher rate, as well. As there are non-competitive states on both sides of the political aisle, I think that the results would be fairly muted from a national perspective as the margins might narrow a bit in these states but I doubt these impacts would be so lopsided on the national scale to make a material difference in the outcome of elections.

 

[nycfan]

 

[nycfan]

 

[nycfan]

 

[nycfan]

 

[aGDevil2k]

What on earth happened to Ohio in a decade

 

[superrific]

I don't think it would materially wash out at all in the near future and certainly not in one election cycle.

While your hypothetical about 2016 California/NY seems persuasive on first glance, there's a lot of assumptions you seem to make that I don't think would hold true.

- For California to go from 61% Dem to 55% Dem would take adding 1.7 million votes to the total. Those votes would have to be 100% Pubs with no Dems added. Given that there were 14.2 million votes cast in CA in 2016, what you're suggesting would mean increasing turnout by 7.1% solely from disaffected Pubs.

- For NY to go from 61% Dem to 55% Dem would take adding 610k votes to the total. Those votes would have to be 100% Pubs with no Dems added. Given that there were 7.7 million votes cast in NY in 2016, what you're suggesting would mean increasing turnout by 5.4% solely from disaffected Pubs.

- While it is likely that feeling like one's vote doesn't matter at a state/national level likely does drive down turnout a bit, there is nothing to suggest that it would be nearly as biased against any one party in any particular state. I'm sure that there are Pubs in CA or NY who think that their vote for POTUS is wasted because their candidate will never win the state's electors, but local level races are enough to still get many of those folks to the polls. However, there are likely also Dems in CA/NY who know that their preferred candidate will win their state's electors even without their vote and so they stay home, as well.

- You're also ignoring that whatever difference a national popular vote would make to turnout for Pubs as the minority party in CA/NY, the same would be true for Dems as the minority party in TX/OH/wherever. The current red states would likely see a similar shift as blue states in minority party voting under a popular vote winner and while the red states aren't as populated as the blue states, it would provide some mitigation from whatever would happen in the blue states.

In short, while I think that going to a national popular vote model would likely incentive folks in the minority party in non-competitive states to vote at higher rates, I think it would also incentivize folks in the majority party in those same states to vote at a higher rate, as well. As there are non-competitive states on both sides of the political aisle, I think that the results would be fairly muted from a national perspective as the margins might narrow a bit in these states but I doubt these impacts would be so lopsided on the national scale to make a material difference in the outcome of elections.

I wasn't talking about turnout. I was talking about voters changing their minds re: Dem/Pub. Maybe the Pubs could try a couple of small policy changes that might earn them a little bit more support in places like NY or CA. I mean, remember the days when the finance community and the hundred-millionaire communities were pro-Pub? There's a natural fit there . . . but they ruin it with the climate change denialism, the anti-Semitism, the scapegoating.

Heck, they might even gain a couple of points simply by not trying to blame the whole country's problems on San Fran and NYC liberals (and Chicago too). It is irrational for voters to want to diminish their own relevance and make themselves more or less invisible just so the GOP doesn't have to alter its messaging in any way.

 

[theel4life]

How is she not up more? Makes no sense.

 

[superrific]

What on earth happened to Ohio in a decade

Cleveland shrank and West Appalachia grew. Ohio has been trending red for a long time. The people who can get out do, and they are typically the educated folks who now vote Dem. It's the same story in Iowa, which was once a battleground state and is now basically red. The people there aren't the best and the brightest.

It's also the same story in Michigan, I think, though Michigan was starting out from a bluer starting point. In these places, the minorities tend to be concentrated in the declining urban areas, which are then scapegoated and the state's politics becomes Detroit/Cleveland versus the mostly white people out state.

 

[superrific]

Steve Garvey had a career OBP of .329. Will he get more votes than he got on base? We will see.

 

[aGDevil2k]

Nate the not great said Trump is a favorite to win.

His post-538 model is just not that good IMO

 

[Geisterfahrer]

What on earth happened to Ohio in a decade

Shorter superrific: meth, then opioids.

 

[nycfan]

 

[HeelInTheOzarks]

Cleveland shrank and West Appalachia grew. Ohio has been trending red for a long time. The people who can get out do, and they are typically the educated folks who now vote Dem. It's the same story in Iowa, which was once a battleground state and is now basically red. The people there aren't the best and the brightest.

It's also the same story in Michigan, I think, though Michigan was starting out from a bluer starting point. In these places, the minorities tend to be concentrated in the declining urban areas, which are then scapegoated and the state's politics becomes Detroit/Cleveland versus the mostly white people out state.

It's the same in every city in the midwest that was an industrial base.

St. Louis peak population 856k (1950), now 301K
Detroit peak population 1.84M (1950), now 639K
Cleveland peak population 914K (1950), now 372K
Cincinnati peak population 503K (1950), now 311K
Pittsburgh peak population 676K (1950), now 303K
Milwaukee peak population 741K (1960), now 575K
Buffalo peak population 580K (1950), now 278K

I'm pretty sure St. Louis is the #1 city in America in lost population percentage. As recently as the 2004 election Missouri was still thought of as a bellwether state, but St. Louis has just shrunk too much to keep the state competitive. Ohio is the same story (2 major cities bleeding population). Michigan and Wisconsin are still hanging on. Pittsburgh's decline has slowly made Pennsylvania redder, as now Philadelphia has to almost outvote the rest of the state by itself.

 

[Calheel]

I

It's the same in every city in the midwest that was an industrial base.

St. Louis peak population 856k (1950), now 301K
Detroit peak population 1.84M (1950), now 639K
Cleveland peak population 914K (1950), now 372K
Cincinnati peak population 503K (1950), now 311K
Pittsburgh peak population 676K (1950), now 303K
Milwaukee peak population 741K (1960), now 575K
Buffalo peak population 580K (1950), now 278K

I'm pretty sure St. Louis is the #1 city in America in lost population percentage. As recently as the 2004 election Missouri was still thought of as a bellwether state, but St. Louis has just shrunk too much to keep the state competitive. Ohio is the same story (2 major cities bleeding population). Michigan and Wisconsin are still hanging on. Pittsburgh's decline has slowly made Pennsylvania redder, as now Philadelphia has to almost outvote the rest of the state by itself.

Those must be city proper numbers, no? I would think metro vs. metro would be the more relevant stat, as the city suburbs are voting blue now.

 

[superrific]

It's the same in every city in the midwest that was an industrial base.

St. Louis peak population 856k (1950), now 301K
Detroit peak population 1.84M (1950), now 639K
Cleveland peak population 914K (1950), now 372K
Cincinnati peak population 503K (1950), now 311K
Pittsburgh peak population 676K (1950), now 303K
Milwaukee peak population 741K (1960), now 575K
Buffalo peak population 580K (1950), now 278K

I'm pretty sure St. Louis is the #1 city in America in lost population percentage. As recently as the 2004 election Missouri was still thought of as a bellwether state, but St. Louis has just shrunk too much to keep the state competitive. Ohio is the same story (2 major cities bleeding population). Michigan and Wisconsin are still hanging on. Pittsburgh's decline has slowly made Pennsylvania redder, as now Philadelphia has to almost outvote the rest of the state by itself.

Yeah, St. Louis was the only thing keeping MO from being Arkansas. That's St. Louis city, btw, not St. Louis County. The county is still blue overall, but not like the city. And the far out burbs are pretty red I think.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

I haven’t heard much from Seinfeld. What’s he been saying?

Basically he's gone on several rants in recent years about how woke far left political correctness has ruined comedy and there have been no great sitcoms since the 90s because of it. And you can't really do stand-up comedy at college campuses because students are too easily offended, even though plenty of comedians still do the college comedy circuit. Basically everything (and especially comedy) was better back in the day when he was younger and you could say offensive things about various groups of people and individuals and still get a laugh.