I mean, mostly polling data. Pretty much every decent pollster shows a very close race, with battleground states on a knife's edge. We're all aware of the reasons that it's difficult to poll in the current time - I mean I know I sure as hell am not answering a call or text from a pollster - but I've yet to be convinced that there's anything more objectively predictive than polling. Most of the stuff cford mentions boils down to vibes more than anything objective.
The only thing that gives me comfort is the fact the Dems have over performed the polling in every off cycle election since Dobbs, sometimes in stunning fashion.
I think that record breaking fundraising- particularly small dollar donors- and grassroots volunteer efforts are a little more than “vibes” but I hear ya.
Right, but the discussion is why are liberals freaking out with anxiety. Trust me; there would be freakouts even if everyone believed Kamala is likely to win. Not so much from me (though there is a freakout scream inside me trying to get out, for real) but from other long-term liberals who feel the anxiety.
I mean there's only been one significant off-cycle election since Dobbs, and it didn't involve Trump (or the presidential race in general). I'm skeptical that effect will carry over. But I certainly hope it does.
If you have any data about how donations and grassroots volunteers translate into votes I'm all ears. That stuff is great in theory, but in practice I'm not sure it translates into votes.
Several special elections.
They are. And ground games matter. Everything I have read about Trump's ground game is that it's basically non-existent, and it's especially non-existent in PA.
Not good predictors in this environment.
I guess I don’t understand. Do you think that people who donate to a certain candidate aren’t also likely to vote for them, too? The Harris campaign has shattered fundraising records, particularly as it relates to new, first-time, and/or small-dollar donors. They have a massive advantage over the Trump campaign in each of those areas. I guess it’s entirely possible that those folks are donating but not voting but I’d think those odds are kind of low, right?
They do. There's research on that. For one thing, people who volunteer and donate are highly motivated to vote. It's a reflection of expected turnout. Second, those factors help increase turnout.
Can you link it? I'm not trying to be a dick, I'd honestly like to see that.
You’re definitely not being a dick. You’re one of the best posters we have. Certainly one of my favorites.
Ok, I hear you, and I join everyone here in wishing the spreads were more than they are. Here are the things I keep coming back to as far as the swing state polls are concerned, and I don't think any of these things are particularly vibey.
I have no doubt that people who donate to a candidate are highly likely to vote for them. What I'm more skeptical of is that you can look at raw number of donors as predictive of a proportional vote share, given that a large majority of voters likely will not have donated to any candidate.
No, I can't.
