Sleuthing thread: Blue firewall in PA

[rodoheel]

I have some time for pointless endeavors at the moment, as I'm having some trouble getting work done when I've got election anxiety.

You and me both buddy

 

[nycfan]

From Quinnipiac’s PA poll today:

“… Nearly 7 in 10 likely voters (68 percent) say they plan to vote in person on Election Day, while 32 percent say they plan to vote early by mail or absentee ballot.

In the multi-candidate race, 55 percent of likely voters planning to vote in person on Election Day are backing Trump, while 38 percent are backing Harris.

In the multi-candidate race, 63 percent of likely voters planning to vote early by mail or absentee ballot are backing Harris, while 32 percent are backing Trump. …”

Pennsylvania 2024: In Tight Presidential Race, Trump Gets Boost From Men, U.S. Senate Race Tightens, Quinnipiac University Pennsylvania Poll Finds; Reps And Dems Agree: 2024 Presidential Election Is Single Most Important Of Their Lifetimes | Quinni

"The gender gap widens with Trump increasing his lead among men, as what remains a very tight race heads into the final stretch," said Quinnipiac University Polling Analyst Tim Malloy.

poll.qu.edu

 

[uncjhodges]

It was. I saw that the guy has 1000 subscribers to his substack. I don't know why we would think this guy has anything to contribute.

I think, at least what happens to me, in these times where we have little information, i go on side quests to find more and find people that may or may not be helpful

 

[superrific]

From Quinnipiac’s PA poll today:

“… Nearly 7 in 10 likely voters (68 percent) say they plan to vote in person on Election Day, while 32 percent say they plan to vote early by mail or absentee ballot.

In the multi-candidate race, 55 percent of likely voters planning to vote in person on Election Day are backing Trump, while 38 percent are backing Harris.

In the multi-candidate race, 63 percent of likely voters planning to vote early by mail or absentee ballot are backing Harris, while 32 percent are backing Trump. …”

Pennsylvania 2024: In Tight Presidential Race, Trump Gets Boost From Men, U.S. Senate Race Tightens, Quinnipiac University Pennsylvania Poll Finds; Reps And Dems Agree: 2024 Presidential Election Is Single Most Important Of Their Lifetimes | Quinni

"The gender gap widens with Trump increasing his lead among men, as what remains a very tight race heads into the final stretch," said Quinnipiac University Polling Analyst Tim Malloy.

poll.qu.edu

FYI Quinnipiac is a random digit dialing pollster. Sorry, THE random digit dialing pollster, because I don't think anyone else uses that approach.

So more so than even for other polls, the results are driven by post-poll weighting.

 

[superrific]

I think, at least what happens to me, in these times where we have little information, i go on side quests to find more and find people that may or may not be helpful

Well, there's a third option, which is actually unhelpful. That is, some people can increase your confusion.

 

[uncjhodges]

So you dont think the GOP has been listening to Trump and voting by mail more than they did before? They finally stopped listening to him on anything and this was it?

I have no idea. My hope is they are voting by mail more than before

 

[EhringhausSouth]

Totally anecdotal. However, I friend of mine does business in Pittsburgh and is in and out of there quite often. He called PA for Trump in 2016 due to the Trump signs in that area, and called it for Biden in 2020. He recently went to Pittsburgh and said it seemed less than 2020 as far as Trump support. I think Harris wins PA in the end relatively comfortably.

 

[Kraftyheel89]

I think it would be impossible to calculate anything off of early voting. More MAGAs are voting early this time because of the cult leaders' directive. Who knows how many.

I also do not put much faith in polls as Trump supporters have thwarted the polls by not being honest about voting for Trump. I am not sure of their intentions or why they do this. It is kind of like the so called "undecided voters" that get through CNN's lazy post debate and convention reactions from "undecideds." A simple search of their social media showed MAGA crap everywhere. But there is an obvious reason why MAGAs did that.

I do think the polls are directionally accurate. Such as when Biden was in free fall after his debate, but it quickly reversed when he dropped out and Kamala was selected.

 

[superrific]

Totally anecdotal. However, I friend of mine does business in Pittsburgh and is in and out of there quite often. He called PA for Trump in 2016 due to the Trump signs in that area, and called it for Biden in 2020. He recently went to Pittsburgh and said it seemed less than 2020 as far as Trump support. I think Harris wins PA in the end relatively comfortably.

Yard signs aren't even anecdotal. I suppose they could reflect the ground game, as a lot of signs these days are handed out by door knockers. That's how I got my signs.

 

[superrific]

I have no idea. My hope is they are voting by mail more than before

They are definitely, 100% voting by mail WAY more than before.

 

[CFordUNC]

 

[aGDevil2k]

From Quinnipiac’s PA poll today:

“… Nearly 7 in 10 likely voters (68 percent) say they plan to vote in person on Election Day, while 32 percent say they plan to vote early by mail or absentee ballot.

In the multi-candidate race, 55 percent of likely voters planning to vote in person on Election Day are backing Trump, while 38 percent are backing Harris.

In the multi-candidate race, 63 percent of likely voters planning to vote early by mail or absentee ballot are backing Harris, while 32 percent are backing Trump. …”

Pennsylvania 2024: In Tight Presidential Race, Trump Gets Boost From Men, U.S. Senate Race Tightens, Quinnipiac University Pennsylvania Poll Finds; Reps And Dems Agree: 2024 Presidential Election Is Single Most Important Of Their Lifetimes | Quinni

"The gender gap widens with Trump increasing his lead among men, as what remains a very tight race heads into the final stretch," said Quinnipiac University Polling Analyst Tim Malloy.

poll.qu.edu

so then he wins 47-46? and they think that either 7% are third party or telling the truth of undecided? ok

 

[Willy]

I think it would be impossible to calculate anything off of early voting. More MAGAs are voting early this time because of the cult leaders' directive. Who knows how many.

I also do not put much faith in polls as Trump supporters have thwarted the polls by not being honest about voting for Trump. I am not sure of their intentions or why they do this. It is kind of like the so called "undecided voters" that get through CNN's lazy post debate and convention reactions from "undecideds." A simple search of their social media showed MAGA crap everywhere. But there is an obvious reason why MAGAs did that.

I do think the polls are directionally accurate. Such as when Biden was in free fall after his debate, but it quickly reversed when he dropped out and Kamala was selected.

In addition, I would bet that party affiliation has a weaker correlation with voter selection than usual - perhaps ever in modern history. You are going to see many Republican-registered women vote across party lines due to Dobbs, I believe you will see many wealthy Republicans vote across party lines due to Trump's instability. Unfortunately, I believe you will also have many Democrat registered males that vote across party lines (white, black, hispanic younger men, primarily) for various reasons (sexism being a primary motivator). And ~30% of voters are unaffiliated, and we have no way of knowing which way they are going.

My gut tells me Harris squeaks this one out, and I'm not sure anyone can effectively parse through the data we have when there are so many unknown variables.

 

[superrific]

In addition, I would bet that party affiliation has a weaker correlation with voter selection than usual - perhaps ever in modern history. You are going to see many Republican-registered women vote across party lines due to Dobbs, I believe you will see many wealthy Republicans vote across party lines due to Trump's instability. Unfortunately, I believe you will also have many Democrat registered males that vote across party lines (white, black, hispanic younger men, primarily) for various reasons (sexism being a primary motivator). And ~30% of voters are unaffiliated, and we have no way of knowing which way they are going.

My gut tells me Harris squeaks this one out, and I'm not sure anyone can effectively parse through the data we have when there are so many unknown variables.

Depends on what you mean by modern but in the 80s and 90s there was far less polarization by party. State Senate votes were much more decoupled from presidential votes -- something that happens now in very few places.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

Bottom line: I think trying to read the tea leaves based on number of early votes by party affiliation is ultimately going to be a pointless endeavor. I do think the "firewall" numbers are essentially made up; it's too hard to dive how party affiliation will translate to vote totals; and it's too hard to compare to prior elections (2016 was basically a lifetime ago in terms of how people vote, and 2020 was an outlier in every respect). I think it's all basically guesswork - mostly blind guesswork - and if anyone ends up being "right" about what they divined from the pre-election-day numbers it will likely just be by random chance.

^This. Some people keep comparing 2024 early voting results to 2020, but there is no real comparison, as 2020 was the year of the great global pandemic and it skewed everything. Most people naturally want to know early who is going to win, either out of fear (of Trump) or hope (likes Kamala). So they're looking at polls as they have for the past month and trying to find clues and looking at early voting like they're reading tea leaves for some kernel that will tell them who is going to win. And they're not going to find anything, or at least anything that is reliable. We're going to have to wait until election day itself and see what the turnout looks like and what the electorate looks like before we'll really get a good picture. Until then it's all guesswork.

 

[TarHeelGrad]

My wholly uneducated opinion on the firewall of early voters is that someone is attempting to apply 2016 logic to the 2024 situation. Prior to the pandemic, Democrats were more likely to vote by mail. From a vote tallying perspective, this allowed the Pubs to build up a lead, and then watch it slowly erode as the mail-in ballots were counted.

2020 and the pandemic totally upended that approach because many people, both Democrats and Pubs, then voted by mail.

Now, in 2024, BOTH parties (perhaps after seeing the convenience of mail-in voting from 2020, perhaps from Trump encouraging early mail-in voting, etc.) are voting early. Based upon that, I don't see how you can even make a guess as to how many "extra" votes are needed by Democrats to make up the deficit from in-person voting.

 

[Heelsandeers]

Totally anecdotal. However, I friend of mine does business in Pittsburgh and is in and out of there quite often. He called PA for Trump in 2016 due to the Trump signs in that area, and called it for Biden in 2020. He recently went to Pittsburgh and said it seemed less than 2020 as far as Trump support. I think Harris wins PA in the end relatively comfortably.

Living in Pittsburgh I’d say this is accurate. Less Trump signs than 2020 and a surprising amount of Harris signs in MAGA areas

 

[rodoheel]

In addition, I would bet that party affiliation has a weaker correlation with voter selection than usual - perhaps ever in modern history. You are going to see many Republican-registered women vote across party lines due to Dobbs, I believe you will see many wealthy Republicans vote across party lines due to Trump's instability. Unfortunately, I believe you will also have many Democrat registered males that vote across party lines (white, black, hispanic younger men, primarily) for various reasons (sexism being a primary motivator). And ~30% of voters are unaffiliated, and we have no way of knowing which way they are going.

My gut tells me Harris squeaks this one out, and I'm not sure anyone can effectively parse through the data we have when there are so many unknown variables.

Places like NC also still have a lot of people with legacy "D" registrations from when the Democratic party dominated state politics who are not anything close to Dems now and have not been for some time.

 

[nycfan]

On pollster "herding" that often results in everyone making essentially the same errors in a given cycle: Are the Polls Wrong Again? Why Experts Are Worried About ‘Herding’

The gist is that as Election Day approaches, the lower quality polls tweak their polling to approach the results of the higher quality polling (though perhaps with a lean toward the side their date or preferences indicate will win). So a red wave poll that has Trump +5 in State X when the quality polls have it tied or Harris +3 might move toward the center so they aren't an outlier in the review of polling results after the dust settles, say show Trump +1 or +2.

If that is the case, then everyone finding a tie in all the swing states maybe should set off alarm bells that there is group think happening that is washing away what should be a lot of noise in polling data (it should move within the margin of error at least).

The article also notes:

"... Putting aside the polls for a moment, anxious pundits and supporters of both presidential candidates are understandably looking for signs that can indicate a close election breaking one way or the other at the last minute. Some in both camps are obsessed with the fool’s gold of early voting data; given the massive imponderables associated with determining who these people are over time and whether their “banked” votes would have been cast later, you can use early voting to “prove” whatever you want. Others are obsessed with subjective indicia of “enthusiasm,” which may matter, but only by how far it extends beyond the certain-to-vote and is infectious (an “unenthusiastic” vote counts exactly the same as an “enthusiastic” vote). A more relevant factor is the scope and effectiveness of last-minute ads and voter-mobilization efforts, but the former tend to cancel each other out and the latter are generally too submerged to weigh with any degree of certainty. ..."

So we should all just do our part, vote, and go have a cream soda or something until the actual results come in because there are no crystal balls, only general trends subject to the assumptions/bias baked into each pollster's model, as well as a herding effect as pollsters jockey to not be the outlier in the final polls.

 

[lightbluenc]

All that and it ended with cream soda, blech