Nate, do you think the immediate Democrat reaction of blaming others (sexism, racism, Latinos, Black men) instead of their own people or policy positions is emblematic of the party as a whole? They seem to be incapable of accepting that there are rational people who don’t vote the way they do, and that prevents them from reaching those people effectively.
I've said for years that Clinton lost in 2016 because her message boiled down to "why won't you stupid cousin humping rednecks vote for me?" to a lot of people, and because Trump told them he would fix their problems even though the cause of many of them was that the world had changed.
They basically ran against Trump again in 2024, instead of *for* anything. That was enough to get my vote, but obviously not enough. Hopefully they learn from it this time, but I'm not optimistic.
It's moments like this that Parties begin larger shifts,
like the Democrats in the fallout of the post Woodrow Wilson administration
or the Republicans in the fallout of the Nixon Administration,
or the Democrats following the Carter administration,
or the Republicans following the Bush Administration.
When the people in the party stop reaching to Anger and Bargaining and start moving to Depression and Acceptance, it comes with the realization that something needs to change. And per Nate's point, the 'need to change' is that the democrats need to be more responsive to the population of America.
In many ways I have told my Democratic friends that while I would prefer that they have won this election, that was not something that was actually good for them in the long run. Whoever won this election would be entering into a very rough spot with several unwinnable problems and probably be eating a shit sandwich in the next three elections. I just preferred the Democrat's mediocre solutions to the Republicans complete lack of plan and avoidance of responsibility.
I see throughout these threads many people who are saying that the Democrats will be out of power 'For Decades', and that there is no coming back. But the reality is there are two forces that are in play that will likely change everyone's tone in 26, 28, and 30:
1. The Democrats will change. Forcing Biden off the ticket may have been too late to save the election, but it started the process of addressing the electorate's concerns and starts the process of revaluation they need to do. And given how their policies are popular, it's clear that they need to bury the elitism and adopt a little populism of their own.
2. A large percentage of the vote has, for years, been a rejection of the system in place. The Democrats will have little role in the system after last night, and will be uplifted by the 'perpetual rebel' voter for a fair bit, as the 'sticky' parts of the republican institution drive overshadow the fading remains of the Clinton Era systems that basically died last night.
Hence why your side lost the "permanent lasting majority" last night. It was there for the taking. But instead you insult normal Americans from all walks of life, and all races. You fumbled the ball and now the permanent majority is now pretty much out of your hands for decades. No senate, for decades. No supreme court, and most likely no house. Hope you feel good feeling superior. As an irremediable, bitter clinging, deplorable garbage I'm feeling rather glorious this fine am. History was made. Deal with it Brian F.
Dude, you're right in your criticism... but what are you talking about with the "decades" lmao. Obama had a 60 senate majority and he lost it in 6 years. Trump will only have a 52-54 majority. There's no chance that lasts decades. It might be gone by 2026, probably be gone by 2028, and almost certainly by 2030 at the latest.
You could be right we shall see. They needed to keep it close to 50 for the senate and failed. This will be costly in 2026. After that it is dreary for sometime for the left. JD and Tulsi (or Younkin) will be tough to beat in 2028. Shapiro probably doesn't make it through the progressive version of perfection over common sense gauntlet. Remember 2020? The good news it is good for democracy for the left to learn and grow from it. Perhaps they can learn from it and regain power in 2028 and beyond. But it will be tough. No on trusts the media, the pollsters or Nate for that matter. The whole game has changed. Welcome to the new reality.
It definitely will be costly and I certainly they learn. Just wanted to note regarding numbers that this year, 17 democrat senators were up for reelection compared to just 9 republicans. The 2026 and 2028 maps are much more favorable to dems, with majority republicans up for reelection, hence why I said it will be difficult for R’s to keep majorities past 4 or maybe even 2 years (if dems manage hold 52/48 this year).
Which 3 (at least) Republicans are the most vulnerable do you think in 2028? I see zero at this point. Things change. But I think THE change just went down.
What democracy? Kidding, right? There ain't gomna be a democracy at the end of the Trump term. You've clearly missed a few of his memos. Don't think you care though, really. Based on some of your other posts you are very much an angry White guy.
I'm not making a predication. But I'm wondering how you will feel if the political pendulum, as it so often does, swings back the other direction in two, four, or six years. History says that's likely. Thing happen in the world that are beyond a parties control, voters get frustrated with things that make their life harder and they take it out on who they can. Republicans have all three branches now. Correct or not, voters will eventually take their pain out on Republicans. Will it mean that Republicans have it all wrong?
I am sick and tired of this "insulting normal Americans" trope. Yeah, Hillary had her off camera remak on the basket of deplorables, but Trump insults EVERYONE on camera, day in and day out. And just WHO are these normal working Americans, living in an alternative reality, thinking that crooked sociopathic billionaires are going to save their ass, but the dems are uninterested? Its all absurd, its wrong, its twisted - one can blame elites all one wants, but Thiel and Musk and Trump, and dare I say JFK jr. ARE ALL ELITEs, of the slimiest kind.
Seems accurate to me. They were very harsh and judgmental towards the centrists they should have been trying to win over, pushing them away, by calling them garbage, racist, deplorable, fascist, weird, and so on.
You are delusional if you think this wasn't about inflation. If Trump would have won in 2020, the Republican party would be facing punishment from voters right now because he would have been stuck with the same global COVID inflation.
To be clear, I'm not pro-insults, I think it's a major tactical error every time I see Democratic leaders or voters doing it.
But why do Trump and his supporters seem to get a lot more of a pass on this exact same behaviour? Because you cannot tell me Trump supporters don't routinely have extremely harsh words for everyone who identifies as liberal or progressive or even just anti-Trump, and Trump himself of course will insult any person or group who opposes him on anything pretty much daily.
There is no such thing as a "permanent" majority. You are engaging in the same post election over-fitting that the winning party always does: projecting all of your beliefs onto the general public. The Bush folks though for sure they had the recipe for a permanent majority until they didn't. The voters that put Trump over the top are punishing the incumbent party for global COVID inflation. Had Trump won in 2020, the Republican party would have been punished this election cycle.
Wow, talk about bitter, your response takes the cake. But, let's say, hypothetically, that 2 people run for a neighborhood office and 10 people vote. Candidate A uses lots of fearmongering ads and speeches and x10 more lies in every speech. Candidate B is female and black and tries to be more positive. Let's say 6 people vote for Candidate A. How do you know why the 6 people voted for Candidate A. If 2 of them were self-aware enough to know they'd never vote for a black woman, would they state that as their reason? If 2 of them subconsciously would never vote for a black woman, obviously they would state other reasons. So, how to tease out the "truth?" (Separately-- "Rational" would need to be defined and examined to begin with. If you believe the data that one person lied x10 times, that would undermine people voting for him based on his given arguments as being rational. If you believe in Climate Change as a top 3 global danger, you would find no rationality in the outcome. Rational reasons such as promised self-interest economic improvements would have to be x2d for truth given the high falsity rate in claimed facts.) Cheerio, Tim.
Voters will go back to Democrats when they get unhappy about some major catastrophe or economic downturn. The presidency and control of congress go back and forth regularly. And every time both parties inaccurately claim a new mandate to do everything they believe is important.
You are absolutely right that the pattern is eight years of R's followed by eight years of D's followed by eight years of R's and so on.
The question, which D party will be elected? It won't be far left progressives. The Trump campaign felt that their most effective ad was the one attacking Harris for sex change operations for illegal immigrants. Whoever wins for the DNC next will be somebody like Bill Clinton, a centrist who isn't afraid to reform welfare and pass criminal justice reform.
I think you are right. And also, I think it’s worth pointing out that Trump is night very far right in some senses—drug law, protecting social security, not banning abortion (we’ll see), not advocating for the end of gay marriage. However, much of the GOP is still far to the right of most voters. So when Trump is gone, the GOP I’ll have a tough time I think.
The _old_ GOP. Remember, Trump is the product not of a civil war in the Republican Party but an invasion. The old GOP would never have signed on for tariffs and protectionism. That GOP has gone the way of Mitch McConnell and the Cheneys.
At the very least, there are rational people who as a matter of principle abstained from voting this year, or who only voted in downballot races. I know several personally.
This is just flat out untrue. The big puzzle about voting is why people vote as it is a deeply irrational action: the probability that your vote matters in any way is infinitesimally small, but the cost is somewhat large: taking out an hour or so to go vote, and in some cases, hours.
It's best understood as something people do as an act that has meaning to them, completely independent of influencing the outcome. It's something people enjoy, something they find entertaining, something that makes them feel a sense of involvement and community. There's also a sense of social obligation, so they'd feel bad if they didn't.
All of that is worth the costs of voting to people, so it's not really irrational.
But what's interesting is that the OP mentioned some of his friends showing up to vote down-ballot but not for prez. How does that fit any pattern of rational behavior? Avoiding wrist fatigue???
The only claim I made is that I personally know several people who abstained from voting as a matter of principle. I'm not going to violate those people's privacy by outing them here, so perhaps you'd like to try a different comeback.
There is a thick philosophical and economic literature trying to understand why people vote even though it's obviously personally irrational to do so, yet Jeff can confidently state that voting is always rational because he is a Democrat so he knows best.
I don't think it's obviously personally irrational.
It's best understood as something people do as an act that has meaning to them, completely independent of influencing the outcome. It's something people enjoy, something they find entertaining, something that makes them feel a sense of involvement and community. There's also a sense of social obligation, so they'd feel bad if they didn't.
These are real benefits that people get out of it. All of that is worth the small cost of voting.
Let's see. I a Jewish man with a PhD from the top program in a quantitative field. I've taught grad level math and stats. I literally minored in logic in undergrad.
I voted for Trump after raising money in my home for Obama.
No worries. You just elected an amoral authoritarian with zero respect for our laws or governance. He wants to dismantle the Constitution. You won't ever need to vote again.
When Trump leaves office, and now we will never be sure when that will be exactly, because you can be sure he and his cronies will have altered things considerably in the next 4 years, the Republicans will have so cemented power through the courts and Department of Justice it won't matter. Even if you are able to cast a vote, it will be meaningless. Think Maduro.
Its striking that Dems always point out Trump's issues with the constitution, but fail to notice how they have undermined the rule of law and the constitution?
BLM rioters should not be charged.
Pack the bench to get the results you want.
Attacks on free speech.
Attacks on anybody that doesn't conform to your way of thing, even other Dems.
Attach on freedom of association. If somebody says he is conservative or voted for Trump, he must be deranged.
You may be rational generally, but you explicitly said you were voting "based entirely on the border, anti-Semistism (I'm Jewish), and generalized lawlessness."
Which makes it clear you voted based on emotional response to propaganda.
Propaganda? Are you saying that millions of illegals didn’t cross the border in the last 4 years? You realize that Biden opened the border on his first day in office?
Biden deported about the same number of people as Trump, and has not been able to improve on the processing rate because the Republicans didn't fund more resources.
Your brief anecdotal sketch indicates that you might often be rational in many areas. You decided to mention you are Jewish,-- was that an indication that T's hardline support for Israel's aggressive military action was a main factor? One could debate the rationality of that. But, the main point is that T campaigned on lies, lies, lies, just look at all the fact-checking data. People use lies to manipulate people, not convince them to logically vote for them. If you care about the economy, was voting against 12 Nobel prize winning economists' advice rational? They have PhDs and, you know, Nobel Prizes.
I literally have a PhD in economics and a close relative of mine won a Nobel in econ lol.
Democrat platforms in general are bad for economic activity. Republican policy is generally good.
I'm happy to debate individual parts of individual plans, but the truth is neither candidate has laid out any real plans. For example tariffs. Good if used to force China to respect and abide by US intellectual property and patent laws. Bad if widely applied as blunt isolationist tool.
But no, the economy was not what drove my vote.
I see anti-semitism in the news EVERY DAY here in Chicago. We have Jews getting shot on their way to synagogue in Chicago by psychos shouting islamist slogans. Elderly Jews being attacked outside of synagogue in LA. Americans who are held hostage in Gaza as we speak. College students being blocked from attending college because they are Jewish.
And the Biden admin and Harris campaign turned their backs. My grandmother survived a Nazi camp. It started much like we are seeing now: random acts of violence against Jews on the street; vandalism of Jewish businesses; barring Jews from public places like college campuses.
Haha, yes you are not rational. I am professional mathematician: anyone who could do a PhD in math/stat and come away with the idea that those credentials imply rationality, is in fact profoundly stupid.
Thinking that the average person with an advanced degree in a quantitative field is not more rational than the average person without is the actual profoundly stupid take.
I didn't make any claims about the average person, just about one person (you).
For a someone who "majored in logic", you seem to be pretty weak at making rigorous arguments. Next time don't try to sneakily change your premise from "my degree => I am rational" to "average person with my degree is more rational than the average person."
Lol, you're really struggling here. First, I didn't major in logic, and no school I've ever seen has a logic major. This makes me seriously doubt that you teach math.
Second, you said that anyone who thinks that a person having an advanced degree in a quantitative field implies that that person is rational is profoundly stupid.
It is quite obvious that you are comparing those with an advanced degree to the rest of the population. If you don't want to get called out for saying something dumb, don't say it in the first place.
Yeah, I think the reaction in that direction is a lot more widespread this time among Democrats.
First, if you believe that racism, sexism, etc. are responsible for Trump's win in 2024... this is a thing *you already knew* about the country from 2016 (and the close shave in 2020). So it's not a real excuse. Basically: "the damned DNC should've done something better to get some of those racists and sexists on board".
And second, there is an understandable desire to blame the DNC for allowing Biden to run again. However... it's still unclear to me exactly what kind of leverage they had over him. What were they going to do? Start leaking stuff to the press? 25th Amendment? Impeachment? How was any of this going to work, when the dude did not want to leave office, even after that debate? I think the DNC is getting more blame than Biden, and that that's... unfair.
The DNC should have held a primary and recruited people to run against Biden. And maybe also made a rule that all candidates (or maybe just over 65) have to have a neurological examination and make results public.
This one I can't get behind. I don't see how you're going to hold a fair primary with the amount of time they had left. I guess it would've been possible to have a state primary or two, but it would've been rushed, you'd have to choose the states, you'd have accusations of bias based on which states were chosen, you'd have to figure out how to assign delegates based on just those primaries....
I think the only serious path was something along the lines of an open convention. But Biden effectively prevented this by endorsing Harris.
Hold one national one and do it online. It could be done quickly. Choose 8 candidates or so, have them each make a speech or write a statement, and have everyone who wants to vote pay the DNC for a membership, get assigned a member number, and submit their vote online.
When there is an incumbent who is trying to do the incumbent thing of having nearly or exactly no primary challenge? Yeah. A full primary pushed by one of the other centers of party power against the wishes of the incumbent is the political equivalent of civil war.
Some civil wars are necessary. But avoiding them is, as a rule, wise. I can’t see any world where a democratic primary made things go better, tbh. But if there is one, it’s one where Biden doesn’t run.
I think people who were angry about inflation used it as an excuse to get off all of their general grievances with PC culture and elected Trump because of those two issues. I’m not sure how socially conservative these people are (my gut says they aren’t - and that a Trump administration focused on social conservatism would be deeply unpopular) but I think their general anger with experts and attitudes about the correct way to share power clearly led them to choosing Trump.
A second Trump term will be far more chaotic and anti democratic than the first, but I don’t think people will particularly care until it hits their pocketbooks. Regardless of who won last night, it’s clear that we are a deeply divided country and that whoever’s the incumbent can expect to see massive backlash in specials and generals.
At this point, I’m starting to wonder if social media has made incumbency a disadvantage. Because voters are constantly fed information to make them angry about world around them, people will go searching for destructive change in hopes of finding some relief.
I don’t really hold a lot of this against Kamala though. On The Daily, Astead Herndon mentioned this idea that Harris’s biggest flaw was running as an institutionalist in a country that believes its institutions are beyond repair. Voters might view the Trump chaos as a cleansing fire, after which they can build a house on the barren land. Unfortunately, it might end up consuming us all in the process.
Oh yeah, let's just throw the baby out with the bathwater.
No, we are not coming back from this. I never imagined Trump could be as as bad as he was the first term, the second term will be a nightmare because now he knows how to play the game and he knows what he can get away with which is - EVERYTHING. And he has lots of help.
We have elected our destroyer. God help us, it's over.
He is also rapidly deteriorating, and I am skeptical he has the healthspan left to serve a full term. It wouldn’t entirely surprise me if a stroke or something got him before he could be even sworn in.
Republicans do the same thing when they lose. I mean, look at the whole "Stop the Steal" thing in 2020! It's human nature. Lots of people would prefer to blame someone else than grapple with their own failings.
Of course, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. But I'm also not sure how much it even matters. Most people are far less aware of politics than we give them credit for.
You are oversimplifying the reaction of Dem voters and politicos then applying your own narrative. If you honestly look at the reactions among Dems you will see a wide spectrum. Within that spectrum you will find many people who say the dems have lost touch with working people and the average voter. Who knows how democratic behavior will change going forward, but it is silly to pretend like there aren't many different views and some honest conversations. When the Obama coalition crushed Republicans in 2008, did you wonder why Republicans are "incapable of accepting that there are rational people who don't vote the way they do"?
Im not nate, but as an extremely progressive democrat who happens to hold one view that is not very popular on the far left and that is the view that I like winning elections, I would like to say YES!
I sure do! Just like 2016, their first instinct is to lash out at voters. It's why they're losers again, among other reasons. I'd love nothing more than to see them quit whining and figure out how to actually win.
I think you have to admit it was never a toss up. Between the fundamentals (including Kamala being a generationally bad candidate) and a chunk of “Republican” pollsters being right on the money, it was always a Trump lean, obfuscated by the polling establishment snorting the same copium as the media. The question is whether their clear bias persists beyond this election.
Easy to say in hindsight. But two days ago, we were working off the very imperfect data that we had available. In assessing that data, most of us came to the reasonable conclusion that either candidate had a good shot at winning. That conclusion was right at the time, imho.
Agree, but I think you’ve missed the point. A subset of pollsters were right on the money. The ones we were told were right wing propaganda. The ones that were also the closest in 16 and 20. And the most “trustworthy” pollsters were wrong in the same direction. Again. I don’t know if it’s willful ignorance or an attempt to put a toe on the scale, but something’s gotta give.
Yes, and these precious red pollsters were dead wrong two years ago. So what’s your theory: “Rasmussen/IA/Trafalgar are very high quality pollsters, but they deliberately miss every midterms!”?
According to 538's ranking of pollsters Rasmussen got 86% of their calls correct in 2022. Trafalgar didn't do as good at 62%. The Top pollster was Suffolk University that had a R+0.7 bias.
Midterm elections are a totally different ballgame. We're talking presidential here - Atlas Intel, which is mostly run by non-Americans and has no clear bias and was one of Nate's highest rated pollsters, has been 1 of the top 2 most accurate pollsters in both of these last two elections. Atlas + Rasmussen are the ones to watch, and it's a sign of Nate's bias and intellectual confusion that he had cut Rasmussen out of his counts entirely this cycle. Their average margin of error across the state polls was LESS THAN ONE PERCENT this election. If you're on X, start following some actual people from the right and move out of the bubble
I'd say it's almost certainly unwilling ignorance.
Remember that the polls were pretty accurate in both midterms. There'd be no reason for pollsters to be willfully biased with Trump on the ballot, but not when it's only Trump-adjacent midterm candidates.
3 elections is still a pretty small sample size, so it's possible everything is working as expected and the polls simply flipped tails three times in a row... but I think pollsters simply haven't managed to incorporate the "Trump effect" into their weights, likely voter screens, etc.
It's possible that the R-leaning pollsters have figured out the Trump effect... Or maybe they're just R-leaning and it all sort of worked out for them. I legit don't know.
Don't listen to the stupid people who claim some polls are propaganda. Listen to the people whose job it is to pay attention to polls, like Nate Silver, and you'll see that you can't identify which subset of pollsters will be right on the money this time. If you think you have a special power to do this, then you're just as guilty as the people who claim some polls are propaganda.
that opinion has no data to back in given that Rasmussen Reports has been wildly accurate this election with an average reporting error across state of 0.8%. And that AtlastIntel has been right on the money two electiosn in a row now. Accurate polling is possible and reliable. https://x.com/Mark_R_Mitchell/status/1854327705178648646
Someone who is off by a point from everyone else, systematically, will be closer to the truth in half of elections, and farther in half of elections. You really *can’t* be right on the money every time with randomized sampling, unless you have a way of rigging the elections to match your numbers.
Because Ann Selzer had a history of being right and Rasumssen a history of being less right.
That Ann Selzer poll also *was* incorporated into the model correctly. Nate *did* say it was probably wrong, given other polls that didn't make so many headlines. Kamala's odds of winning Iowa only increased to 13%.
Pollsters earn their trustworthiness across multiple elections. Part of modeling is creating a metric to evaluate that trustworthiness based on previous predictions/outcomes. Should that metric be adjusted? I'm sure Nate and all the other aggregators/modelers will consider it in future elections. But indexing only on this outcome may introduce a further bias.
A more interesting question is to try and find any signal in the polling data which seems to cause the "anti-trump" bias in all of the other polls. Why did the vast majority 'undervalue' Trump? Finding the answer to this question may indeed be more valuable than blindly redeeming pollsters who happened to be right on the money.
You’re just cherry-picking at this point. Of course some people happened to get the result right. Especially right leaning pollsters. Doesn’t mean they are generally more accurate over the long term
While I disagree with the "generationally bad candidate" (subjective) nonsense in this comment, it's certainly true that if you looked at the *right* polls the answer was there all along.
The question is hard though: which polls do you trust? The entire point of a model like Nate's is ostensibly to untangle this.
As of right now, it looks like AtlasIntel knew all along (again!), but anybody boldly asserting that this was knowable 6 months ago is full of it.
Look, the candidate who couldn’t handle doing a single press conference and showed up to under half of her single interview in a hostile environment was generationally bad. You can keep coping all you want, it’s really not up for debate. It’s okay to become unburdened by what has been.
The problem that the “right wing propaganda” pollsters who got 16 and 20 the most right did it again, and the mainstream ones we are supposed to trust continue to fail to adjust.
I'm sorry, but I'm not giving any credit to pollsters (Trafalger, Rasmussen), whose whole MO is to simply show Republicans doing better than "mainstream polls." It certainly "looked" right in 2016 and 2020, "looked" wrong in 2018 and 2022, and was sort of a mixed bag this year. RCP's national polling average (mostly made up of mainstream polls) ended *literally* tied, and it looks like Trump might win the popular vote by 1/1.5 points. That's actually a really accurate prediction!
Good god, I've been asking this question since 2015, and have been slapped in the face every time because I was dumb enough to think it was rhetorical.
There was basically a 2 point polling error which, as has been driven home over and over again on this very substack, is very normal. You could not have reasonably predicted anything other than a tossup based on polling alone
Nate’s model looks to be about 5.5 points off the popular vote margin. The actual outcome of this metric is way out in the tail of his models outcomes. Huge miss.
Are you looking at the partially counted popular vote margin, or are you projecting what the popular vote margin will look like once all the vote by mail states are fully counted?
Just because I hate it when reasonable people point out a statistical realities and then armchair warriors decide that they are the experts in everything because they pulled the inside straight and guessed right,
2.5 national is looking like the actual results as we get closer to the actual counted tally, *maybe* 3, if there's some district specific elements I'm missing, or *maybe* 2 if it goes the other way since a lot of it is Urban California, but 2.5 nationally appears to be where it's heading at the moment.
Swing states are a solid 2 points max which is within the range for almost everyone.
So in a few days when I have to hand in my analysis on the polls/states analysis I'm going to have to give a thumbs up to the majority of B grade pollsters, a minor thumbs down for Atlas because while they were 'right' the variance in a lot of locations are all over the board (which is not what we want in the business world), and Sienna and Selzer get to wear the cone of shame but they have a good rep outside of this election so I doubt they'll lose and contracts or funding over this.
If current leads hold (as of 5pm the 6th), The final result will be *exactly* the modal outcome of the final prediction: Harris 226 EV, Trump runs the swing states. It's hard to argue credibly for a conspiracy of biased polls when poll averaging results in perfect accuracy
I don't understand the statement "Harris was a generationally bad candidate". Are you talking about her polling? She polled better vs Trump for this election than Biden did. Are you talking about her platform? She had basically the same message as any reelection campaign. Are you talking about her personality? As Silver has discussed, the Gallup excitement index for her is higher or matching any candidate in the past 50 years. To me, this is truly a preposterous claim. Are you trying to simply refer to the fact that she is a woman? The last candidate this was said about was notably Clinton.
It's just a correct statement. She really, really was a terrible candidate.
She's a terrible speaker, could not give straight answers to questions, failed to fire the Biden people, failed to attack or challenge Biden in any way, could not name one thing she would do differently, barely did any interviews, could not admit to changing her positions, and could not explain why she changed them.
She ran a poorly-thought-out and poorly-planned campaign.
"Generationally bad" candidate feels like too strong a phrase for me. She is a good debater, and I think she probably is as good a basic politician as Joe Biden was in 2020 or George W. was, by which I mean the ability to communicate effectively across rallies, interviews, and all the personal interactions that candidates have on the campaign trail.
But she's definitionally in the lower quadrant of all major party nominees that I can remember (I'm 57). Combine that with the fact that she was saddled with her all terrible policy decisions from 2019/2020 and never figured out how to address that challenged effectively, and I indeed think she was at least a "very bad" choice as a candidate.
I said several times that Kamala Harris was the worst candidate (or second worst to Hillary, but Hillary at least had a better resumé at the time) put forward by a major party in the general election in 40 years and people always laughed, until they actually went back and looked at the candidates.
I just don’t know how that wasn’t obvious to everyone with eyes and ears, from the beginning. I mean, if you make Hillary Clinton look like a good candidate… Jesus.
Oh fwiw, I being a Never Trump Republican-ish would throw Trump in there too as worse, but you gotta hand it to him, at least he's usually a great campaigner.
In addition to what others have stated, until we have the final counts and know what the margin of victory is in the tipping point state, we can’t really say if it was a toss up or note. Someone had to win, and the way so many swing states were lining up so closely, the most likely outcome was whoever won won them all, even if they barely squeak by
1) Not my preferred outcome, but hey, at least we can tell Lichtman to shove his 13 keys up his ass.
2) Agreed about the vibes. I work remotely so haven't yet left the house today, but all the whining and histrionics on social media is something I'd been dreading even more than the election returns themselves. And anecdotally, there seems to be a lot less of that this time around than 2016. Although disappointed, for the most part people seem content with saying their piece and moving on, and the only ones acting like drama queens are the same ones who do that about everything anyway.
Just after the election was called, The Free Press came out with a short piece entitled "Repeat After Us: This Is Not the Last Election" and I'd had it queued up in the chamber waiting to unleash it on any Chicken Littles that crossed my path, and now it looks like I may not even need to.
Its funny because Nate mentioned that if they were followed based on how Lichtman had applied them in the past, the 13 keys really should have favored Trump this cycle. So Lichtman may be out...but the Keys live on.
"the 13 keys really should have favored Trump this cycle."
Sure, that was obvious to me when I read Lichtman's 2024 edition. I carefully turned all the keys following all Lichtman's rules and making what I thought were reasonable subjective decisions and Trump was the obvious winner ------------ then Lichtman came out several weeks later and turned most of the keys for Harris! And lost the credibility for his Keys model probably forever. Sheeeeesh.
Which is sad because in actual fact the Keys prevailed, just as they have every year except 2000 when Bush, thankfully, won fair and square, but the Keys called it for Gore. Lichtman's response was a Big Lie about Gore supposedly having the election stolen from him. You know, the same thing the left attacked Trump for...
Lichtman correctly called it for Trump in 2016. I think what happened is that he truly believed the Keys would indicate the winner, and really wanted Harris to win, so it was wishful thinking.
Democrats no longer had the advantage in party affiliation and didn’t act like it. The bulk of their messaging was “Trump bad, Trump is Hitler, MAGA are fascists”, things that pander to their own base but do little to convince independents or moderates. No coherent agenda or policies. On the other hand what Trump did was create a tent including former liberals like RFK, Tulsi Gabbard, or Elon. Absolutely horrendous campaigning by the Dems and they need to take a hard look at the mirror.
No, he's right. Trump had solid, specific visions and a reason to run. Kamala, like Hilbot before her, just seemed to want power and was too scared to give clear answers, preferring instead to sound like she was written by a committee
I wanted Trump to lose, because I think he could turn the US into an autocracy and that would be catastrophic for everyone. My policy positions, which are not so popular sometimes, takes a backseat to that.
So you see, I'm in a bind. Do I talk about environmentalism and how transgenderism, like being gay, is a brain structure thing and about building homes and universal healthcare? I'm honest, but my positions aren't popular.
Do I talk about democracy and keep everything else on the backburner? Trump supporters say I'm being hysterical on that and that I'm hiding my real agenda.
Meanwhile Benny Johnson on Twitter is saying "lol, sike, I actually do want Project 2025" and he's given a pass. And Trump just repeats stuff that isn't true until I just give up.
I think I'm held to a double standard. I think actually, that my standard is just always going to be set in a way in which I can't reach it while Trump is held to none.
Or is that supposed to be written from Kamala's point of view?
I wish Kamala had just spoken honestly about her positions. If someone is truly concerned about Trump harming democracy (which seems absurd to me, but not the point), the proper response is not to attack him for that. That is completely counterproductive - it just helps him, because those attacks are why we like him and why we voted for him.
Instead, the proper response is to promote a positive vision that would encourage people to vote for you instead. Kamala completely failed in this.
The more dangerous someone thinks Trump is, the more urgent it is to present a strong policy vision rather than attacking him for being dangerous.
1. Disagree. As Nate laid out in one of his pieces Trump did have actual concrete policies (some of them are admittedly questionable at best) tied to his campaign, unlike Harris who went out of her way to avoid presenting herself in any such fashion.
2. True in a sense, but I’d say Trump did a much better job actually integrating these newcomers into his campaign whereas Cheney and Kelly seemed to simply serve as anti-MAGA pieces (again, basically her only talking point besides abortion) and really added not much else.
3. This is strictly opinion-based but I really think this can’t be the sole takeaway for Democrats, especially after 2016. They have to admit there is a backlash against them and change strategy or else right wing populism will overwhelm them. I’d be scared to run against a potential Vance-Gabbard ticket in 2028 under the current political climate.
3. Depends on the political environment. Maybe Trump/Vance will have the same approval ratings as Biden/Harris. Given their very low popularity ratings they will face headwinds very early on, especially when they try to enforce their P2025 agenda.
If you look at recent elections in other countries where the "anti-incumbent mood" was the primary reason for sweeping a party from power, the replacement has tended to become just as unpopular, very quickly. Examples are Starmer in the UK, Albanese in Australia, and Scholz in Germany. Trump/Vance might face the same fate.
Definitely fair. I guess incumbents have lost in three straight elections and that could be a persisting trend in a frustrated electorate. What I tried to point out was Dems seem to have learned very little lessons from 2016 and I don’t know if they can do the same again.
The "former liberals" added to Trump's tent were less attractive to the bulk of the liberal side than Trump himself was, and had no recognizable liberal views to speak of anymore. Definitionally, it seems more like expanding the base than expanding the tent when you're adding people further to your ideological side than you are yourself.
Maybe Liz Cheney is also less attractive to the bulk of MAGA than Kamala (can the MAGA side here weigh in on this?), but if so it's not due to complete ideology mismatch since she's as low-tax and pro-life as ever.
The Selzer poll was the clear outlier leading up to the election. It made Democrats (myself among them) get their hopes and believe there would be some sort of polling error the other way this time. False hope.
It doesn't even seem like it should be complicated. Trump won because people are (rightfully) unsatisfied with the Economy and Immigration. I don't blame Biden, but the dollar went so much further in 2019 compared to today. And the Democrats unwillingness to get tough on immigration before it got out of control was the cherry on top.
The unthinkable thing here is that democrats never touched immigration because they thought the added Hispanics would eventually help them electorally, and at least under Trump they actually appear to have destroyed any obvious coalition for Dems to win a national election with.
This. Democrats are living in a bubble and that bubble is college educated white bourgeoise. The fact that they didn't understand this just demonstrates how few immigrants are in that bubble.
And even the few immigrants and working-class people who do enter their elite college-educated bubble very quickly learn to keep their mouths shut when it comes to politics. Source: this was me twenty years ago.
A few times I made comments that were mildly illiberal, like that I supported the police closure of illegal gypsy camps (a big issue back then in Britain), and I was met with a combination of wall-to-wall REEEE and condescending sneering. One guy who went on to be a Liberal Democrat politician said, and I quote, “Yes, I suppose you would think that because of your working class background” and wrote off my perspective without even asking my reasons. He'd never actually met a gypsy; I had, many of them. Eventually you learn that if you want to be able to get on with your life in peace you have to shut up. The same people were blindsided a decade later when Britain voted for Brexit.
There's something extremely toxic about the way your average college-educated upper to upper middle classs white liberal thinks of immigration - let's steal all the doctors and lawyers from the third world, make them our menial labour wage-slaves, and pat ourselves on the back as super progressive for how much browner we're making the country - except let's make sure *we* never actually see them and their brown skin. Oh, and definitely let's make sure they can't compete for our good white collar jobs.
They're more likely to get picked to for visas when going through the legal immigration process because of their educational attainment, but they can't actually practice here. It's a big problem. It's common to all Western countries.
"they thought the added Hispanics would eventually help them electorally"
No... that's what Republicans have *said* the Democratic party's plan was, and it is taken for granted as truth. The argument provided is this: "why else would the Democratic party leave the border open?"
There are at least 2 reasons, and both were sufficient on their own: Democrats thought that tough border enforcement was a losing issue for them due to 1. leftist types who believe that tough border enforcement amounts to crimes against humanity and 2. Hispanic voters who (elite Democrats believed) would view it as a policy of discrimination against people like them. 1 is true, and will remain a liability for Democrats for a while. 2 is probably only somewhat true, but it's not true enough to prevent Trump from making significant gains (however, large scale deportation efforts could cause issues... one shouldn't conflate the impacts of border policy with internal deportation efforts that may end up targeting illegal immigrant relatives of Hispanic voters).
In any case, none of this is a quasi-great-replacement strategy.
The fact that many Hispanic people are culturally conservative has been well-understood for decades. This is why after the losses to Barack Obama, the Republican party believed that reaching out to Hispanic voters was the next step, and this is a significant reason why Cruz and Rubio were the two frontrunners in the 2016 primary.
The out of control border was a problem for people on both sides of the aisle. Comments in the New York Times and Washington Post, from traditional democrats, overwhelmingly very angry and upset about it. Border issues were common ground for both sides. Didn't help when Abbott
/DeSantis brought home the issue by airlifting /busing these people to New York.
Every time I read any of those articles and the comments, my reaction was the Democrats are going to lose the election. When they finally attempted to deal with it a few months before the election, it was too little, far far too late.
I tend to be a data-driven person, I know the economy is good. Inflation isn't affecting me, particularly. But I also do not live paycheck to paycheck, either.
The common man isn't data-driven, is worried about the day-to-day. Add to that Harris is a female, and not a particularly imposing or commanding female at that, it was too much for her to overcome. A strong male candidate might have done better. Whether he would have won, given the border and the economy, and the move to the right around the world as well as in the U.S. is the unknown. I suspect a good male candidate would have defeated Trump - who personifies deplorable.
It may yet, in the long term. It depends on how quickly they can get citizenship. I’m assuming Trump won’t try to deport anyone but criminals (and note that Venezuela won’t take them back).
In what sense do you mean "won't deport anyone but criminals?" In Trump's view, every illegal immigrant is a criminal that ought to be deported.
He has indicated, I think, that he plans to get violent criminals out first. But in no uncertain terms, his policy proposal is to remove all of the 15M (or 20M? 25M? I think the numbers he gives here vary depending on the day, and are believed to be much higher than the actual count) illegal immigrants currently in the US.
Walking around D.C. (another big blue city) today, I had the exact same experience Nate is talking about here. In 2016, the vibes felt apocalyptic. But today it felt mostly like any other day, perhaps a bit off, but nothing that unusual. And definitely not as weird as the day after the 2016 election.
It seemed normal enough to me, too; except when I went to the farmer's market locally an older woman waiting on me gave me the stink eye. Then I remembered I WAS wearing a red outfit, not a coincidence. She probably figured it out and was a Kamala voter.
Walking around Atlanta today was about the same in my experience, as opposed to 2016 which was definitely a different vibe here. People I interacted with were, business as usual with a hint of sympathy, “Try to have a good day.”
The best thing about this is that the supposedly racist candidate, the guy who was supposedly dog whistling to white supremacists, was saved by a bunch of black and Hispanic voters who flocked to his cause.
Pleased that media lies and blatant propaganda finally caught up with them. Jonah Goldberg lying about the “nine guns trained on Cheney” was the cherry on top.
Mostly Hispanic. Black voters voted Harris 88 to 12. In his best state it was 80 to 20.
A number of Black voters stayed home because of Gaza and Obama being condescending to Black men, which is not an endorsement of Trump.
Edit: And I want to make one other thing flamingly clear, by the way. I'm not scapegoating Hispanic people or saying people should be racist to them. I'm saying Dems should study why they lost so many of them.
Don't blow this out of proportion. Elon's twitter is even less like real life than the previous version.
Nate I did try to warn you. When you were getting constant polls indicating a 50/50 race, your job as a prognosticator was to examine the polling error that was consistent in 2016 and 2020. Your job was to examine any details, if any, that were offered by the pollsters as to what they thought the fix was to their massive misses. Then your job was to extrapolate that information to inform your own model or forecast of the election.
This is really simple stuff, one that lead me to easily predict Trump winning every swing state. The analysis you provided is not worthy of $10/m unfortunately. You seem like a nice guy, but it just isn't. You also changed your model midstream when Trump started to gain in the national forecast, which was really a sign of things to come.
You weren't willing to examine the hidden Trump vote. As one of those voters it's quite simple: The media portrayed Trump as literally Hitler. This means Trump voters have to hide away their vote from friends and family, to avoid being judged as someone who is bringing forth the destruction of the country. We know this isn't true, and in fact it's quite the opposite, but we remain silent.
I've unsubscribed for now but good luck in the future.
I’m not religious at all but I know for a fact that there is a tenth ring of hell for the “I told you so/I knew it all along/There were lots of obvious signs” hindsight-people like you.
Don't usually use this platform so not sure if it's possible, but you can view my posting history. Also your reply is unhinged and that kind of attitude is a big reason your party is losing independents.
I voted for them the last time, yes. I'm from Berlin, so I am your average big city liberal but I consider voting CDU (center right) in the next election which will take place in January (you might want to google "German government turmoil"). I like centrist positions, something I am missing lately in the American Republican Party.
You'll notice that Nate actually listed Trump winning every swing state as the most likely outcome of the election. If you can't think in terms of uncertainty, maybe you can count that as a win. But the point of this blog is to think in terms of uncertainty.
Strategically, the Democrats are going to have to embrace America's political realignment, not continue to fight it. Maybe a good start would be allowing an honest, competitive primary for the first time since 2008.
The college educated are a minority in this country. Michael Lind, Ruy Texeira, etc. have pointed out that the migration to the GOP is class based and color blind. The Dems are in for a bad couple of years while they figure out how to suppress their college educated base--as David Shor has pointed out over and over their values are not shared by the country at large.
If you look at the leaders of the GOP, and everyone in power, and the decisions they make, it is clear they are not color blind. But, they have swayed a certain amount of voters to vote for them through successful manipulations.
Yeah dude, anyone who thinks and isn’t “manipulable” blindly fills in boxes with a D next to them on the ballot. What an idiotic take. You are the sheep.
Thank you for your insights. Obviously, all those fearmongering T ads with false data (and rallies and press conference full of lies, how do those cats taste?) were designed for the critical thinking voters. I believe the fact checkers had the T claims ahead by x10 in false facts. Have a nice day.
More like the Reformation / Counter Reformation of the Brians.
I'd stay out of it, it's a religion for the Brians clearly.
I'd try telling them both that this was a natural reaction to a party being tone deaf to the economic and structural issues relating to immigration not being properly managed during a time when there is a international rejection of incumbency because of the economic shocks caused by a lack of focus on infrastructure exacerbating the damages caused by a the Covid shutdowns and wars,
but that would only lead to them both preaching to me about how they are right and I should join them in their 'big tents', and I get enough of that from politicians when I present my usual "Your projecting your beliefs onto a borderline election result and a population that don't actually believe in your politics, they just put up with you, and you barely convinced them."
Not sure if Nate reads the comments here, but, you need some introspection on your model. As an analytics person, you didn't let the data speak for itself. You trashed and diminished a pollster like Rasmussen and called a lot of them "low-quailty."
This was not a 50-50 race. It was a blowout and an ass kicking. It was never a toss-up and the data would have told you that. So many signs that indicated this was Trump's election. Yes, you wrote CYA pieces, no different than Cohen at the NYT, but even your final "simulation" was wrong. She would have lost this election 8 out of 10 times.
I still admire your work, but Yourself, Selzer, Lichtman, Raltson, and any other so called politcal experts did a disservice to the industry. You missed the forest for the trees.
No, it wasn't. You think it was because of public polling and some data folks told you it was. The same public polling that underestimated Trump in the past two election cycles.
Trump was tied or leading in the Popular Vote. He was tied or up in every Battle Ground state. Gallup the GOLD STANDARD of public opinion had this as a favorable election for Reps. Harris was deeply unpopular. She did not have the minority support she needed and was a part of an Administration that most of the country believe failed.
I credit people like Mark Halperin who continually told people that Trump was going to win, and it more than likely wouldn’t be close. This was based on internal polling, which Nate seemed to dismiss in an earlier write-up. I know my self-included, this wasn’t a shock at all and some knew it was coming.
It's not much of a shock - the polls only had a slight error. They underestimated Trump by a few points. But he was behind in the popular vote by a point or two according to the polls.
"But he was behind in the popular vote by a point or two according to the polls."
As of writing -
TIPP (Tied) ~ 4 Point miss
Ipsos (Harris+2) ~ 6 Point miss
New York Post (Tied) ~ 4 Point miss
NPR/PBS/Marist (Harris+4) ~8 Point miss
Forbes/HarrisX (Harris+2) ~ 6 Point miss
Emerson(Tied) ~ 4 Point miss
Reuters/Ipsos (Harris+3) ~8 Point miss
Morning Consult (Harris+2) ~ 6 Point miss
And some of these polls herded at the end. All of them under estimated Trump support. Yes, there was a few that had him leading. They were mocked.
Keep in mind.....it was an R+3.1 when Biden dropped out and Nate had Biden at sub 20% winning. His model needs to be revised. Again, this was not a 50-50 election.
And Ralston's was a complete cope job devoid of any data, giving Harris a .3% chance just so he could go on MSNBC and not favor Trump. The incentive structure of these guys is all out of whack.
Huh? It seems like it was perfectly vindicated by the results. The most likely single outcome occurred, and polls were within about 2 points of the final result in the important states.
Saying that a coin is fair isn't in any way impugned by the coin coming up heads on a single flip.
First, in effect he's peddling a narrative that Harris has an advantage, however slight.
Second, there's always the question about how well the model reflects reality and whether or not the model's results are useful in examining reality. The slight Harris edge doesn't mean anything--do another couple of runs and it could just as easily have been Trump up by the same margin, or an exact tie.
In that light I think the best course with regards to intellectual honesty would have been to just call it 50-50.
I guess he's saying that to him a shift between 50-50 and 50.3-49.7 is a fundamentally different kind of shift than a shift between 51-49 and 51.3-48.7
I'm curious if Nate will ever comment on the absolute failure of polling models this year to track Trump supporters in them. Over the last 3 elections Nate and pollsters continually say that pollster have adjusted their methods to take their biases into account. Last night just clearly shows that is absolutely not the case- For the blue wall states the pollsters democrat bias was on average the same as 2020.
Atlas Intel was basically spot on in every state. Other pollsters were off by ~2-3 points which is a normal polling error (something Nate has written about in the past).
Yes this is my point- pollsters were still off in their methodology same as 2020. They didn't change anything to account for Trump voters that they missed in 2020.
Pollster's jobs isn't to just go out there and get a sample- it's to get a sample that's representative of the population. In the same way, Nate's job isn't to simply aggregate polls, but to weight the model in a way that takes into account historical information. When neither of them did that the polls were off and the aggregate was off.
I agree, they have been off in the same direction 3 Trump elections in a row and so there is probably something systemic they are continuing to miss even though they made adjustments to their methodologies from the past. That being said, I would argue they were a lot closer this time than in 2020 (RCP average had Harris +0.1 nationally and we will probably end up at Trump +1.5-2 once the western states are fully in with swing states also off by less than prior cycles). I think it is tough for Nate to calibrate his model to adjust for polling errors made in prior elections when the pollsters supposedly made these adjustments themselves. Obviously easy with hindsight.
Perhaps one area he needs to think about in future is whether he should be giving more weight to the national polls vs the swing state polls as they have tended to be more accurate in 2016, 2020 and 2024 (despite still underestimating Trump a bit). Obviously you need the state information to predict the Electoral College, but perhaps it needs to be adjusted based on national polling vs the other way around.
Fwiw I actually made a decent amount of money betting on Trump to win the popular vote at surprisingly attractive odds given the polling averages were showing a dead heat.
The RCP national average is Harris +0.1. Trump is actually winning the popular vote by 3.5 points. The error at the national level is just as bad as previous cycles.
Yup it's absolutely insane that these pollsters even make their money lol, maybe next election cycle I'll just start my own polling company since the bar seems to be in hell...
It’s like trying to predict the weather. Just because it’s wrong most of the time, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. Nate, unlike most pollsters, at least tries to inform people that it is, in fact, a prediction model and a model is only as good as the data it can collect. Something Nate fights hard for is a good data collection and representation. I think the guy has earned his paycheck.
The weather reports I read are accurate most of the time...
And if a weather station that has a major interest in selling raincoats keeps predicting that it's going to rain when it never does... do you think that station is doing a good job of altering their methodology to produce accurate results?
The analogy is one most people will understand. There were a lot of good predictions in Nate’s model even if the final result was wrong. There are so many variables involved it’s like trying to predict the shape of a cloud, you can get a general idea by studying wind patterns but don’t expect the model to tell you a cloud will be shaped like bunny.
Is Trump winning the popular vote by 3.5, when you project out all the votes that are left to be counted? In every recent election, there has been an illusion of Republican strength in the popular vote because California counts slowly, but that always changes by a few percent by the end.
Trump's margin may fall a bit but the primary components of his popular vote margin are overperformance in red states and narrowing the gap in blue states.
With California only 54% reporting, it's too early to claim this. It's already down to 3.3 points. It's likely that Harris nets ~2.5 million more votes out of California when that's all reported, The current margin is 4.8 millon. That would cut the PV margin to Trump +1.7. There are also ~8% left to report in very D states (NJ, IL, NY), and the late votes in these states seem to be more Harris-leaning than what is already in. Point being, let's wait till the votes are all in to draw conclusion about NPV and related poll error.
VA went from D +10 to D + 5. Also see NY, NJ, etc. I suppose 2.5 million out of CA is plausible given 2020 results but keep in mind that the Hispanic share of the vote is higher in CA plus big cities across the country saw depressed turnout, and CA has some of the biggest.
In addition AZ is only about 60% in currently and the remaining votes are supposed to favor Trump. That's why Kari Lake may have a chance.
I'm not using the 2020 results. I'm literally looking at what is reported in 2024 (a much narrower margin than in 2020) and projecting that outward to 100% of the vote. There's no reason to think that California, which is heavily D and has a longstanding culture of mail in ballots, will shift meaningfully from where it is. But it may. If what is outstanding leans more to Trump, that number will be smaller. If it leans Harris, it will be larger. Even with smaller margins out of NY, NJ, IL, Harris will still net some votes, and that will bring down the NPV margin for Trump.
CA has a large Hispanic population and we just saw significant migration of that voting bloc to Trump. In addition as Silver writes Trump made huge gains with minority/immigrants votes in the New York boroughs. CA also has a large immigrant population.
I know. And that is already showing up. The current margin is Harris +17, down from Biden +29 four years ago. My 2.5 million estimate is working with Harris' margin, not Biden's. The final margin of NY is ~Harris +12, which is down from Biden's +23 margin. This implies that CA votes around 6-7 points left of NY, so Harris+17 in CA seems plausible, and she could potentially increase that by a point or two. We will see.
Nate said over and over that he didn't know if pollsters had adjusted or changed their tactics to adjust for Trump overperforming his polls the last two times. I may be missing something but it seems like he said that stuff The last few weeks.
I don't agree with Nate's political viewpoints on lots of things. But he is not intellectually dishonest.
The story was told when they selected Tim Walz as their VP pick instead of the highly popular Josh Shapiro. I don't want to say I told you so, from my many posts on this subject, but = I Told You So! They gave away an election, so as not to offend the far left antisemites in their party. And I couldn't be happier on the outcome.
That too. She was a completely empty vessel, who thought she could win an election by repeating "Trump Is Hitler" as an answer to every question on policy. She got what she deserved.
One problem with Shapiro, that I can see, is it you would have an African American and a Jew on the ticket (I'm an atheist but ethnically 100% Jewish) . I always thought that the GOP would have a way to dog whistle particularly with a Jew on the ticket.
Why would that be a problem? Kamala's husband is Jewish already. And so is Trump's daughter, for that matter.
Anyone who'd be that antisemitic is not going to vote GOP anyway, over us bombing the shit out of the Arab terrorists in the Middle East. They'd vote Jill Stein. Or maybe Harris, thinking she'd be less supportive of Israeli self-defense.
On the margins definitely I mean the word 'cabal', 'global elitist', 'Soros', etc... so you might be right that on the fringes like your proud boys and things like that it could be an issue. But at the same time it's not like they were going to vote for her anyway. So I will retract my statement
Also there's a difference between being anti zipnost and anti-Semitic.
I don't believe there is, at least not in practice where 99% of the time it's used as an excuse for antisemitism.
Given the extreme importance and centrality of Israel to us historically, religiously, and culturally for thousands of years, the two cannot meaningfully be separated.
The positive about not picking Shapiro is that he isn't tainted by this election. I certainly agree that the Democrats have a lot of work to do, but my big fear is that the deck is stacked now. Another four years of right-wing justice and people being rewarded for turning a blind eye to white collar crime will make it harder to recover. Here come the oligarchs.
I thought before that might well be why he didn't agree to join the ticket, if that was how it was. The fundamentals were always way against the Dems, and once damaged by this election, he probably couldn't run again.
I live in NYC. Voted Republican for state and local election for first time in my life as a lifelong Democrat. Federally indicted mayor of the largest city in the country? Corrupt family and criminal courts? 12 officers to kill a fucking squirrel and a racoon? Prohibitively expensive to get a gun license? Benefits for the poor that the middle class do not qualify for? Pay to Play for the rich? Wealthiest 1% owning all the wealth? (Yes it happened while Democrats held office too) Honestly I flipped because of the squirrel, such a small thing but it was also such a huge thing. I voted for Kamala but I am not even sad that she got trounced. Replacing Biden AFTER the primary was political suicide and honestly the most undemocratic thing I have ever experienced. He is the only guy who has beaten trump btw.
For the record Democrats were happy when Adams got indicted while Republicans embraced him because they love criminals (see Brett favre campaigning, not to mention their convicted felon) and spun a narrative that he was politically persecuted for being against illegal immigration
Nate, do you think the immediate Democrat reaction of blaming others (sexism, racism, Latinos, Black men) instead of their own people or policy positions is emblematic of the party as a whole? They seem to be incapable of accepting that there are rational people who don’t vote the way they do, and that prevents them from reaching those people effectively.
I've said for years that Clinton lost in 2016 because her message boiled down to "why won't you stupid cousin humping rednecks vote for me?" to a lot of people, and because Trump told them he would fix their problems even though the cause of many of them was that the world had changed.
They basically ran against Trump again in 2024, instead of *for* anything. That was enough to get my vote, but obviously not enough. Hopefully they learn from it this time, but I'm not optimistic.
Historically,
It's moments like this that Parties begin larger shifts,
like the Democrats in the fallout of the post Woodrow Wilson administration
or the Republicans in the fallout of the Nixon Administration,
or the Democrats following the Carter administration,
or the Republicans following the Bush Administration.
When the people in the party stop reaching to Anger and Bargaining and start moving to Depression and Acceptance, it comes with the realization that something needs to change. And per Nate's point, the 'need to change' is that the democrats need to be more responsive to the population of America.
In many ways I have told my Democratic friends that while I would prefer that they have won this election, that was not something that was actually good for them in the long run. Whoever won this election would be entering into a very rough spot with several unwinnable problems and probably be eating a shit sandwich in the next three elections. I just preferred the Democrat's mediocre solutions to the Republicans complete lack of plan and avoidance of responsibility.
I see throughout these threads many people who are saying that the Democrats will be out of power 'For Decades', and that there is no coming back. But the reality is there are two forces that are in play that will likely change everyone's tone in 26, 28, and 30:
1. The Democrats will change. Forcing Biden off the ticket may have been too late to save the election, but it started the process of addressing the electorate's concerns and starts the process of revaluation they need to do. And given how their policies are popular, it's clear that they need to bury the elitism and adopt a little populism of their own.
2. A large percentage of the vote has, for years, been a rejection of the system in place. The Democrats will have little role in the system after last night, and will be uplifted by the 'perpetual rebel' voter for a fair bit, as the 'sticky' parts of the republican institution drive overshadow the fading remains of the Clinton Era systems that basically died last night.
Very good comment.
yeah Frank Luntz and Gary Kasparov have good post mortems
Links?
Kasparov: https://x.com/Kasparov63/status/1854208815086084542
Luntz: https://x.com/FrankLuntz/status/1854058416920293410
Thanks!
I am not sure there is any hard data showing any rational people voted for Trump.
Hence why your side lost the "permanent lasting majority" last night. It was there for the taking. But instead you insult normal Americans from all walks of life, and all races. You fumbled the ball and now the permanent majority is now pretty much out of your hands for decades. No senate, for decades. No supreme court, and most likely no house. Hope you feel good feeling superior. As an irremediable, bitter clinging, deplorable garbage I'm feeling rather glorious this fine am. History was made. Deal with it Brian F.
Dude, you're right in your criticism... but what are you talking about with the "decades" lmao. Obama had a 60 senate majority and he lost it in 6 years. Trump will only have a 52-54 majority. There's no chance that lasts decades. It might be gone by 2026, probably be gone by 2028, and almost certainly by 2030 at the latest.
You could be right we shall see. They needed to keep it close to 50 for the senate and failed. This will be costly in 2026. After that it is dreary for sometime for the left. JD and Tulsi (or Younkin) will be tough to beat in 2028. Shapiro probably doesn't make it through the progressive version of perfection over common sense gauntlet. Remember 2020? The good news it is good for democracy for the left to learn and grow from it. Perhaps they can learn from it and regain power in 2028 and beyond. But it will be tough. No on trusts the media, the pollsters or Nate for that matter. The whole game has changed. Welcome to the new reality.
lol Tulsi
Unserious minds abound in that administration. Tulsi, RFK Jr, Leon. It's a clown convention.
It definitely will be costly and I certainly they learn. Just wanted to note regarding numbers that this year, 17 democrat senators were up for reelection compared to just 9 republicans. The 2026 and 2028 maps are much more favorable to dems, with majority republicans up for reelection, hence why I said it will be difficult for R’s to keep majorities past 4 or maybe even 2 years (if dems manage hold 52/48 this year).
Which 3 (at least) Republicans are the most vulnerable do you think in 2028? I see zero at this point. Things change. But I think THE change just went down.
What democracy? Kidding, right? There ain't gomna be a democracy at the end of the Trump term. You've clearly missed a few of his memos. Don't think you care though, really. Based on some of your other posts you are very much an angry White guy.
And... this is exactly why Trump won, because of bizarre statements like this.
“There ain't gomna be a democracy at the end of the Trump term.”
Ridiculous.
I'm not making a predication. But I'm wondering how you will feel if the political pendulum, as it so often does, swings back the other direction in two, four, or six years. History says that's likely. Thing happen in the world that are beyond a parties control, voters get frustrated with things that make their life harder and they take it out on who they can. Republicans have all three branches now. Correct or not, voters will eventually take their pain out on Republicans. Will it mean that Republicans have it all wrong?
The Dems might learn something. It’s happened before.
It could be decades if the Dems don't change their attitude and get rid of the snobbery.
Obama's 60 seat senate lasted 6 months, not years. 59 seats until Al Franken was seated. Then 60 seats until Scott Brown filled Teddy Kennedy's seat.
Obama did have a Senate majority for 6 years.
Sorry I might not have even clear. I meant to say Obama won 60 seats and even then his majority (over 50) only lasted 6 years
I am sick and tired of this "insulting normal Americans" trope. Yeah, Hillary had her off camera remak on the basket of deplorables, but Trump insults EVERYONE on camera, day in and day out. And just WHO are these normal working Americans, living in an alternative reality, thinking that crooked sociopathic billionaires are going to save their ass, but the dems are uninterested? Its all absurd, its wrong, its twisted - one can blame elites all one wants, but Thiel and Musk and Trump, and dare I say JFK jr. ARE ALL ELITEs, of the slimiest kind.
>But instead you insult normal Americans from all walks of life, and all races
I'm sorry, who are you saying did that? This was literally Trump's entire platform.
Sorry Tim, with the best will in the world, the insults are unpleasant but wholly deserved.
And this is why your team was absolutely crushed by Trump.
Delusion top to bottom lol.
You think the Dems lost because they weren't nice enough? That's an amusing take.
Seems accurate to me. They were very harsh and judgmental towards the centrists they should have been trying to win over, pushing them away, by calling them garbage, racist, deplorable, fascist, weird, and so on.
They lost because they made enormous portions of the voting population feel excluded (which is the primary point of idpol i guess).
You alienate voters, you lose elections.
You are delusional if you think this wasn't about inflation. If Trump would have won in 2020, the Republican party would be facing punishment from voters right now because he would have been stuck with the same global COVID inflation.
How do you feel about conservatives who have been referring to feminists as “feminazis” for decades?
Not really a fan of that either, but it's clear that was only ever meant to apply to extremists, not everyone on the left
To be clear, I'm not pro-insults, I think it's a major tactical error every time I see Democratic leaders or voters doing it.
But why do Trump and his supporters seem to get a lot more of a pass on this exact same behaviour? Because you cannot tell me Trump supporters don't routinely have extremely harsh words for everyone who identifies as liberal or progressive or even just anti-Trump, and Trump himself of course will insult any person or group who opposes him on anything pretty much daily.
I have a question for you. Are you happy I'm upset?
There is no such thing as a "permanent" majority. You are engaging in the same post election over-fitting that the winning party always does: projecting all of your beliefs onto the general public. The Bush folks though for sure they had the recipe for a permanent majority until they didn't. The voters that put Trump over the top are punishing the incumbent party for global COVID inflation. Had Trump won in 2020, the Republican party would have been punished this election cycle.
Wow, talk about bitter, your response takes the cake. But, let's say, hypothetically, that 2 people run for a neighborhood office and 10 people vote. Candidate A uses lots of fearmongering ads and speeches and x10 more lies in every speech. Candidate B is female and black and tries to be more positive. Let's say 6 people vote for Candidate A. How do you know why the 6 people voted for Candidate A. If 2 of them were self-aware enough to know they'd never vote for a black woman, would they state that as their reason? If 2 of them subconsciously would never vote for a black woman, obviously they would state other reasons. So, how to tease out the "truth?" (Separately-- "Rational" would need to be defined and examined to begin with. If you believe the data that one person lied x10 times, that would undermine people voting for him based on his given arguments as being rational. If you believe in Climate Change as a top 3 global danger, you would find no rationality in the outcome. Rational reasons such as promised self-interest economic improvements would have to be x2d for truth given the high falsity rate in claimed facts.) Cheerio, Tim.
You are the problem, and even when you're having it explained to you that you're the problem you still can't stop yourself from being the problem.
An attitude like this should relegate the Dems to the wilderness for another few years.
Voters will go back to Democrats when they get unhappy about some major catastrophe or economic downturn. The presidency and control of congress go back and forth regularly. And every time both parties inaccurately claim a new mandate to do everything they believe is important.
You are absolutely right that the pattern is eight years of R's followed by eight years of D's followed by eight years of R's and so on.
The question, which D party will be elected? It won't be far left progressives. The Trump campaign felt that their most effective ad was the one attacking Harris for sex change operations for illegal immigrants. Whoever wins for the DNC next will be somebody like Bill Clinton, a centrist who isn't afraid to reform welfare and pass criminal justice reform.
I think you are right. And also, I think it’s worth pointing out that Trump is night very far right in some senses—drug law, protecting social security, not banning abortion (we’ll see), not advocating for the end of gay marriage. However, much of the GOP is still far to the right of most voters. So when Trump is gone, the GOP I’ll have a tough time I think.
The _old_ GOP. Remember, Trump is the product not of a civil war in the Republican Party but an invasion. The old GOP would never have signed on for tariffs and protectionism. That GOP has gone the way of Mitch McConnell and the Cheneys.
At the very least, there are rational people who as a matter of principle abstained from voting this year, or who only voted in downballot races. I know several personally.
That’s a rational decision only if you first assume that Trump and Harris are equally bad. And that’s a very debatable assumption, to put it mildly.
Abstaining from voting is never rational. Maybe think that one through again?
This is just flat out untrue. The big puzzle about voting is why people vote as it is a deeply irrational action: the probability that your vote matters in any way is infinitesimally small, but the cost is somewhat large: taking out an hour or so to go vote, and in some cases, hours.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting
It's best understood as something people do as an act that has meaning to them, completely independent of influencing the outcome. It's something people enjoy, something they find entertaining, something that makes them feel a sense of involvement and community. There's also a sense of social obligation, so they'd feel bad if they didn't.
All of that is worth the costs of voting to people, so it's not really irrational.
But what's interesting is that the OP mentioned some of his friends showing up to vote down-ballot but not for prez. How does that fit any pattern of rational behavior? Avoiding wrist fatigue???
I'm in California, where my POTUS vote did not matter. So I voted for Kara Dansky: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairness-justice/3112331/an-open-letter-to-kamala-harris-from-a-democratic-woman/
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
That's Christopher Hitchen's Razor!
Is that a self-own?
The only claim I made is that I personally know several people who abstained from voting as a matter of principle. I'm not going to violate those people's privacy by outing them here, so perhaps you'd like to try a different comeback.
Any individual vote is meaningless. If it's cold and rainy outside maybe the better decision is to stay inside and play video games.
There is a thick philosophical and economic literature trying to understand why people vote even though it's obviously personally irrational to do so, yet Jeff can confidently state that voting is always rational because he is a Democrat so he knows best.
I don't think it's obviously personally irrational.
It's best understood as something people do as an act that has meaning to them, completely independent of influencing the outcome. It's something people enjoy, something they find entertaining, something that makes them feel a sense of involvement and community. There's also a sense of social obligation, so they'd feel bad if they didn't.
These are real benefits that people get out of it. All of that is worth the small cost of voting.
My poor political scientist friends. Theories of voting is classic political science!
Economists just barged into the party (like we're barging into just about every fields' parties) over the past decade or so.
And then of course we started pretending that we do it better, because that's what economists do.
But on the point of "is there a lot of literature on this?" Yes. So much. Reams and reams.
Not if you'd personally find voting more enjoyable or meaningful, or if you'd feel bad afterwards for not voting.
Or maybe if your social circle threatens to beat you up for not voting. Lots of potential reasons.
As national elections never come down to a single vote , voting is actually never rational
Perfect example. You can't appeal to someone for whom you have no theory of mind.
Let's see. I a Jewish man with a PhD from the top program in a quantitative field. I've taught grad level math and stats. I literally minored in logic in undergrad.
I voted for Trump after raising money in my home for Obama.
You think I'm not rational lol?
No worries. You just elected an amoral authoritarian with zero respect for our laws or governance. He wants to dismantle the Constitution. You won't ever need to vote again.
When Trump leaves office, and now we will never be sure when that will be exactly, because you can be sure he and his cronies will have altered things considerably in the next 4 years, the Republicans will have so cemented power through the courts and Department of Justice it won't matter. Even if you are able to cast a vote, it will be meaningless. Think Maduro.
When people tell you who they are - believe them.
Its striking that Dems always point out Trump's issues with the constitution, but fail to notice how they have undermined the rule of law and the constitution?
BLM rioters should not be charged.
Pack the bench to get the results you want.
Attacks on free speech.
Attacks on anybody that doesn't conform to your way of thing, even other Dems.
Attach on freedom of association. If somebody says he is conservative or voted for Trump, he must be deranged.
Using the judiciary to go after political rivals.
The hysterics just tells me that you believe the propaganda your team was putting out. You might want a therapist, and I'm not saying that as a troll.
Oh god, Maduro lolololol?
You obviously bought into the Democrat propaganda machine. You have to be profoundly gullible to think Trump is planning a coup lmao.
You may be rational generally, but you explicitly said you were voting "based entirely on the border, anti-Semistism (I'm Jewish), and generalized lawlessness."
Which makes it clear you voted based on emotional response to propaganda.
That seems like a rational approach to me. Those are important issues, and Trump is better on them.
Trump is hardly better, but let's not litigate this - your guy won, so his lies were convincing to enough people.
I actually think he's a lot better on those issues, and you don't even need his statements to know this.
Propaganda? Are you saying that millions of illegals didn’t cross the border in the last 4 years? You realize that Biden opened the border on his first day in office?
Biden deported about the same number of people as Trump, and has not been able to improve on the processing rate because the Republicans didn't fund more resources.
But he dropped many of the Trump-era restrictions.
Lol, there are Jewish people being attacked on the street DAILY here in Chicago.
I'm data driven. I'm rational. Trump was clearly a better answer than more of the leftist insanity and Jew bashing.
Pretty dumb to pretend that the border and anti-Semitism aren't 'real' problems.
Keep going like that and you'll get annihilated in the next cycle too.
Pretty dumb to pretend that 78% of Jews are anti-Semitic.
And popular vote is not a way to settle a "rational" argument.
Except to people who are basing their opinion in irrational terms.
Lol, you are truly special.
Trolling after getting dog walked lmao. Keep braying.
Your brief anecdotal sketch indicates that you might often be rational in many areas. You decided to mention you are Jewish,-- was that an indication that T's hardline support for Israel's aggressive military action was a main factor? One could debate the rationality of that. But, the main point is that T campaigned on lies, lies, lies, just look at all the fact-checking data. People use lies to manipulate people, not convince them to logically vote for them. If you care about the economy, was voting against 12 Nobel prize winning economists' advice rational? They have PhDs and, you know, Nobel Prizes.
I literally have a PhD in economics and a close relative of mine won a Nobel in econ lol.
Democrat platforms in general are bad for economic activity. Republican policy is generally good.
I'm happy to debate individual parts of individual plans, but the truth is neither candidate has laid out any real plans. For example tariffs. Good if used to force China to respect and abide by US intellectual property and patent laws. Bad if widely applied as blunt isolationist tool.
But no, the economy was not what drove my vote.
I see anti-semitism in the news EVERY DAY here in Chicago. We have Jews getting shot on their way to synagogue in Chicago by psychos shouting islamist slogans. Elderly Jews being attacked outside of synagogue in LA. Americans who are held hostage in Gaza as we speak. College students being blocked from attending college because they are Jewish.
And the Biden admin and Harris campaign turned their backs. My grandmother survived a Nazi camp. It started much like we are seeing now: random acts of violence against Jews on the street; vandalism of Jewish businesses; barring Jews from public places like college campuses.
Haha, yes you are not rational. I am professional mathematician: anyone who could do a PhD in math/stat and come away with the idea that those credentials imply rationality, is in fact profoundly stupid.
I mean, a PhD in math does imply intelligence. Unfortunately, intelligence doesn’t preclude many tragic forms of stupidity.
Thinking that the average person with an advanced degree in a quantitative field is not more rational than the average person without is the actual profoundly stupid take.
I didn't make any claims about the average person, just about one person (you).
For a someone who "majored in logic", you seem to be pretty weak at making rigorous arguments. Next time don't try to sneakily change your premise from "my degree => I am rational" to "average person with my degree is more rational than the average person."
Lol, you're really struggling here. First, I didn't major in logic, and no school I've ever seen has a logic major. This makes me seriously doubt that you teach math.
Second, you said that anyone who thinks that a person having an advanced degree in a quantitative field implies that that person is rational is profoundly stupid.
It is quite obvious that you are comparing those with an advanced degree to the rest of the population. If you don't want to get called out for saying something dumb, don't say it in the first place.
So you are in favor of running the country based on the opinion of highly educated.
Got it.
Take your meds dude. What do you think you are accomplishing by trolling stupid like this?
Troll funny or troll clever. Trolling stupid is stupid and wastes everyone's time.
I imagine this is sarcasm, correct? Think the other commenters might be missing that.
I don't know, I feel like I've been reading lots of Democrats whose instant reaction is blaming the party!
Yeah, I think the reaction in that direction is a lot more widespread this time among Democrats.
First, if you believe that racism, sexism, etc. are responsible for Trump's win in 2024... this is a thing *you already knew* about the country from 2016 (and the close shave in 2020). So it's not a real excuse. Basically: "the damned DNC should've done something better to get some of those racists and sexists on board".
And second, there is an understandable desire to blame the DNC for allowing Biden to run again. However... it's still unclear to me exactly what kind of leverage they had over him. What were they going to do? Start leaking stuff to the press? 25th Amendment? Impeachment? How was any of this going to work, when the dude did not want to leave office, even after that debate? I think the DNC is getting more blame than Biden, and that that's... unfair.
The DNC should have held a primary and recruited people to run against Biden. And maybe also made a rule that all candidates (or maybe just over 65) have to have a neurological examination and make results public.
This one I can't get behind. I don't see how you're going to hold a fair primary with the amount of time they had left. I guess it would've been possible to have a state primary or two, but it would've been rushed, you'd have to choose the states, you'd have accusations of bias based on which states were chosen, you'd have to figure out how to assign delegates based on just those primaries....
I think the only serious path was something along the lines of an open convention. But Biden effectively prevented this by endorsing Harris.
Hold one national one and do it online. It could be done quickly. Choose 8 candidates or so, have them each make a speech or write a statement, and have everyone who wants to vote pay the DNC for a membership, get assigned a member number, and submit their vote online.
Civil wars are famously great ways to solve internal disputes with no enormous downsides, after all.
Are you saying that a primary election is a "civil war"? What?
When there is an incumbent who is trying to do the incumbent thing of having nearly or exactly no primary challenge? Yeah. A full primary pushed by one of the other centers of party power against the wishes of the incumbent is the political equivalent of civil war.
Some civil wars are necessary. But avoiding them is, as a rule, wise. I can’t see any world where a democratic primary made things go better, tbh. But if there is one, it’s one where Biden doesn’t run.
I think people who were angry about inflation used it as an excuse to get off all of their general grievances with PC culture and elected Trump because of those two issues. I’m not sure how socially conservative these people are (my gut says they aren’t - and that a Trump administration focused on social conservatism would be deeply unpopular) but I think their general anger with experts and attitudes about the correct way to share power clearly led them to choosing Trump.
A second Trump term will be far more chaotic and anti democratic than the first, but I don’t think people will particularly care until it hits their pocketbooks. Regardless of who won last night, it’s clear that we are a deeply divided country and that whoever’s the incumbent can expect to see massive backlash in specials and generals.
At this point, I’m starting to wonder if social media has made incumbency a disadvantage. Because voters are constantly fed information to make them angry about world around them, people will go searching for destructive change in hopes of finding some relief.
I don’t really hold a lot of this against Kamala though. On The Daily, Astead Herndon mentioned this idea that Harris’s biggest flaw was running as an institutionalist in a country that believes its institutions are beyond repair. Voters might view the Trump chaos as a cleansing fire, after which they can build a house on the barren land. Unfortunately, it might end up consuming us all in the process.
Oh yeah, let's just throw the baby out with the bathwater.
No, we are not coming back from this. I never imagined Trump could be as as bad as he was the first term, the second term will be a nightmare because now he knows how to play the game and he knows what he can get away with which is - EVERYTHING. And he has lots of help.
We have elected our destroyer. God help us, it's over.
He is also rapidly deteriorating, and I am skeptical he has the healthspan left to serve a full term. It wouldn’t entirely surprise me if a stroke or something got him before he could be even sworn in.
Woodrow Wilson with Elon Musk playing the roll of Edith.
Republicans do the same thing when they lose. I mean, look at the whole "Stop the Steal" thing in 2020! It's human nature. Lots of people would prefer to blame someone else than grapple with their own failings.
Of course, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. But I'm also not sure how much it even matters. Most people are far less aware of politics than we give them credit for.
I'm not Nate, but mark me as a resounding yes.
You are oversimplifying the reaction of Dem voters and politicos then applying your own narrative. If you honestly look at the reactions among Dems you will see a wide spectrum. Within that spectrum you will find many people who say the dems have lost touch with working people and the average voter. Who knows how democratic behavior will change going forward, but it is silly to pretend like there aren't many different views and some honest conversations. When the Obama coalition crushed Republicans in 2008, did you wonder why Republicans are "incapable of accepting that there are rational people who don't vote the way they do"?
Im not nate, but as an extremely progressive democrat who happens to hold one view that is not very popular on the far left and that is the view that I like winning elections, I would like to say YES!
I sure do! Just like 2016, their first instinct is to lash out at voters. It's why they're losers again, among other reasons. I'd love nothing more than to see them quit whining and figure out how to actually win.
I think you have to admit it was never a toss up. Between the fundamentals (including Kamala being a generationally bad candidate) and a chunk of “Republican” pollsters being right on the money, it was always a Trump lean, obfuscated by the polling establishment snorting the same copium as the media. The question is whether their clear bias persists beyond this election.
Easy to say in hindsight. But two days ago, we were working off the very imperfect data that we had available. In assessing that data, most of us came to the reasonable conclusion that either candidate had a good shot at winning. That conclusion was right at the time, imho.
Agree, but I think you’ve missed the point. A subset of pollsters were right on the money. The ones we were told were right wing propaganda. The ones that were also the closest in 16 and 20. And the most “trustworthy” pollsters were wrong in the same direction. Again. I don’t know if it’s willful ignorance or an attempt to put a toe on the scale, but something’s gotta give.
Yes, and these precious red pollsters were dead wrong two years ago. So what’s your theory: “Rasmussen/IA/Trafalgar are very high quality pollsters, but they deliberately miss every midterms!”?
According to 538's ranking of pollsters Rasmussen got 86% of their calls correct in 2022. Trafalgar didn't do as good at 62%. The Top pollster was Suffolk University that had a R+0.7 bias.
Midterm elections are a totally different ballgame. We're talking presidential here - Atlas Intel, which is mostly run by non-Americans and has no clear bias and was one of Nate's highest rated pollsters, has been 1 of the top 2 most accurate pollsters in both of these last two elections. Atlas + Rasmussen are the ones to watch, and it's a sign of Nate's bias and intellectual confusion that he had cut Rasmussen out of his counts entirely this cycle. Their average margin of error across the state polls was LESS THAN ONE PERCENT this election. If you're on X, start following some actual people from the right and move out of the bubble
Nate NEVER cut Rasmussen.
538 DID cut Rasmussen. Nate wrote quite a good article criticizing 538 when it did that.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/polling-averages-shouldnt-be-political
I'd say it's almost certainly unwilling ignorance.
Remember that the polls were pretty accurate in both midterms. There'd be no reason for pollsters to be willfully biased with Trump on the ballot, but not when it's only Trump-adjacent midterm candidates.
3 elections is still a pretty small sample size, so it's possible everything is working as expected and the polls simply flipped tails three times in a row... but I think pollsters simply haven't managed to incorporate the "Trump effect" into their weights, likely voter screens, etc.
It's possible that the R-leaning pollsters have figured out the Trump effect... Or maybe they're just R-leaning and it all sort of worked out for them. I legit don't know.
Don't listen to the stupid people who claim some polls are propaganda. Listen to the people whose job it is to pay attention to polls, like Nate Silver, and you'll see that you can't identify which subset of pollsters will be right on the money this time. If you think you have a special power to do this, then you're just as guilty as the people who claim some polls are propaganda.
that opinion has no data to back in given that Rasmussen Reports has been wildly accurate this election with an average reporting error across state of 0.8%. And that AtlastIntel has been right on the money two electiosn in a row now. Accurate polling is possible and reliable. https://x.com/Mark_R_Mitchell/status/1854327705178648646
Someone who is off by a point from everyone else, systematically, will be closer to the truth in half of elections, and farther in half of elections. You really *can’t* be right on the money every time with randomized sampling, unless you have a way of rigging the elections to match your numbers.
What did this tweet say?
Kenny is big mad
Just sayin', I would probably pay for a Substack called "Kenny Comments on Stuff"
Maybe leave the grandstanding to people who knew what was going to happen. Why should anyone listen to you? Or Ann Moneybags, for that matter.
Because Ann Selzer had a history of being right and Rasumssen a history of being less right.
That Ann Selzer poll also *was* incorporated into the model correctly. Nate *did* say it was probably wrong, given other polls that didn't make so many headlines. Kamala's odds of winning Iowa only increased to 13%.
How about no grandstanding whatsoever, because grandstanders are just bragging about their ignorance by pretending they have magic abilities.
Ann Selzer approves of your message.
I, however, am not so sure.
Pollsters earn their trustworthiness across multiple elections. Part of modeling is creating a metric to evaluate that trustworthiness based on previous predictions/outcomes. Should that metric be adjusted? I'm sure Nate and all the other aggregators/modelers will consider it in future elections. But indexing only on this outcome may introduce a further bias.
A more interesting question is to try and find any signal in the polling data which seems to cause the "anti-trump" bias in all of the other polls. Why did the vast majority 'undervalue' Trump? Finding the answer to this question may indeed be more valuable than blindly redeeming pollsters who happened to be right on the money.
Yeah that just isn’t true. Trump will win the popular vote by 1 point. Lots of non-right wing pollsters had that.
You’re just cherry-picking at this point. Of course some people happened to get the result right. Especially right leaning pollsters. Doesn’t mean they are generally more accurate over the long term
While I disagree with the "generationally bad candidate" (subjective) nonsense in this comment, it's certainly true that if you looked at the *right* polls the answer was there all along.
The question is hard though: which polls do you trust? The entire point of a model like Nate's is ostensibly to untangle this.
As of right now, it looks like AtlasIntel knew all along (again!), but anybody boldly asserting that this was knowable 6 months ago is full of it.
Look, the candidate who couldn’t handle doing a single press conference and showed up to under half of her single interview in a hostile environment was generationally bad. You can keep coping all you want, it’s really not up for debate. It’s okay to become unburdened by what has been.
The problem that the “right wing propaganda” pollsters who got 16 and 20 the most right did it again, and the mainstream ones we are supposed to trust continue to fail to adjust.
I'm sorry, but I'm not giving any credit to pollsters (Trafalger, Rasmussen), whose whole MO is to simply show Republicans doing better than "mainstream polls." It certainly "looked" right in 2016 and 2020, "looked" wrong in 2018 and 2022, and was sort of a mixed bag this year. RCP's national polling average (mostly made up of mainstream polls) ended *literally* tied, and it looks like Trump might win the popular vote by 1/1.5 points. That's actually a really accurate prediction!
Kamala Harris is unable to speak extemporaneously. If that doesn't make a bad candidate, what does?
I'd say being unable to speak plain is probably a deficit for almost any job.
I wouldn’t trust her to manage a Wendy’s.
Lol. She'd lie and say she worked there when she didn't!
To be fair she does seem like a nice person and a good cook. I could see her hosting a show on the food network - as long as it was scripted.
Looking forward to the tell all’s. Based on the turnover in her office, I suspect she isn’t a very nice person.
And yet he won despite not being able to speak plain!
Never had a candidate who spoke as much lying. gibberish and b******* as that poor excuse for homo sapiens.
Well if that's true, Trump is the champion speaker of an inability to speak plain.
Good god, I've been asking this question since 2015, and have been slapped in the face every time because I was dumb enough to think it was rhetorical.
There was basically a 2 point polling error which, as has been driven home over and over again on this very substack, is very normal. You could not have reasonably predicted anything other than a tossup based on polling alone
Nate’s model looks to be about 5.5 points off the popular vote margin. The actual outcome of this metric is way out in the tail of his models outcomes. Huge miss.
Are you looking at the partially counted popular vote margin, or are you projecting what the popular vote margin will look like once all the vote by mail states are fully counted?
Just because I hate it when reasonable people point out a statistical realities and then armchair warriors decide that they are the experts in everything because they pulled the inside straight and guessed right,
2.5 national is looking like the actual results as we get closer to the actual counted tally, *maybe* 3, if there's some district specific elements I'm missing, or *maybe* 2 if it goes the other way since a lot of it is Urban California, but 2.5 nationally appears to be where it's heading at the moment.
Swing states are a solid 2 points max which is within the range for almost everyone.
So in a few days when I have to hand in my analysis on the polls/states analysis I'm going to have to give a thumbs up to the majority of B grade pollsters, a minor thumbs down for Atlas because while they were 'right' the variance in a lot of locations are all over the board (which is not what we want in the business world), and Sienna and Selzer get to wear the cone of shame but they have a good rep outside of this election so I doubt they'll lose and contracts or funding over this.
5 is about average. And it will get closer.
It's easy to say that after the fact. Even the betting markets gave Kamala a 70% chance of winning the popular vote.
People said the same thing as you in 2022 and Democrats ended up doing better than expected. The future is less predictable than you think.
You’ve missed the point. Perhaps try reading it again.
If current leads hold (as of 5pm the 6th), The final result will be *exactly* the modal outcome of the final prediction: Harris 226 EV, Trump runs the swing states. It's hard to argue credibly for a conspiracy of biased polls when poll averaging results in perfect accuracy
I don't understand the statement "Harris was a generationally bad candidate". Are you talking about her polling? She polled better vs Trump for this election than Biden did. Are you talking about her platform? She had basically the same message as any reelection campaign. Are you talking about her personality? As Silver has discussed, the Gallup excitement index for her is higher or matching any candidate in the past 50 years. To me, this is truly a preposterous claim. Are you trying to simply refer to the fact that she is a woman? The last candidate this was said about was notably Clinton.
It's just a correct statement. She really, really was a terrible candidate.
She's a terrible speaker, could not give straight answers to questions, failed to fire the Biden people, failed to attack or challenge Biden in any way, could not name one thing she would do differently, barely did any interviews, could not admit to changing her positions, and could not explain why she changed them.
She ran a poorly-thought-out and poorly-planned campaign.
"Generationally bad" candidate feels like too strong a phrase for me. She is a good debater, and I think she probably is as good a basic politician as Joe Biden was in 2020 or George W. was, by which I mean the ability to communicate effectively across rallies, interviews, and all the personal interactions that candidates have on the campaign trail.
But she's definitionally in the lower quadrant of all major party nominees that I can remember (I'm 57). Combine that with the fact that she was saddled with her all terrible policy decisions from 2019/2020 and never figured out how to address that challenged effectively, and I indeed think she was at least a "very bad" choice as a candidate.
How about the worst single candidate other than trump in living memory?
What's up with this Hilary erasure :'(
Say what you want about her, she is way better than either of these bozos.
Coming from a bleeding heart liberal, you're right. I really do hope this is a wake-up call for the democratic party, personally.
I said several times that Kamala Harris was the worst candidate (or second worst to Hillary, but Hillary at least had a better resumé at the time) put forward by a major party in the general election in 40 years and people always laughed, until they actually went back and looked at the candidates.
I just don’t know how that wasn’t obvious to everyone with eyes and ears, from the beginning. I mean, if you make Hillary Clinton look like a good candidate… Jesus.
Oh fwiw, I being a Never Trump Republican-ish would throw Trump in there too as worse, but you gotta hand it to him, at least he's usually a great campaigner.
100000%%. And I"m shocked by the number of demented people immediately waving into the replies to deny this obvious truth
What a fatuous thing to say. Of course it was never a toss-up. There just wasn't a way to know that from the polls.
I suspect my gut would've been better at predicting the outcome than looking at Nate's forecast. But I don't come here to read about my gut.
“Trump Whale” who made the large Polymarket wagers agrees with your thesis. https://www.wsj.com/finance/how-the-trump-whale-correctly-called-the-election-cb7eef1d?st=BMZJAg&reflink=article_copyURL_share
In addition to what others have stated, until we have the final counts and know what the margin of victory is in the tipping point state, we can’t really say if it was a toss up or note. Someone had to win, and the way so many swing states were lining up so closely, the most likely outcome was whoever won won them all, even if they barely squeak by
Stray thoughts:
1) Not my preferred outcome, but hey, at least we can tell Lichtman to shove his 13 keys up his ass.
2) Agreed about the vibes. I work remotely so haven't yet left the house today, but all the whining and histrionics on social media is something I'd been dreading even more than the election returns themselves. And anecdotally, there seems to be a lot less of that this time around than 2016. Although disappointed, for the most part people seem content with saying their piece and moving on, and the only ones acting like drama queens are the same ones who do that about everything anyway.
Just after the election was called, The Free Press came out with a short piece entitled "Repeat After Us: This Is Not the Last Election" and I'd had it queued up in the chamber waiting to unleash it on any Chicken Littles that crossed my path, and now it looks like I may not even need to.
Lichtman being so dejected that he’s “taking some time off” to process is the real win here. The chiropractor of political scientists.
Is he? Link?
Its funny because Nate mentioned that if they were followed based on how Lichtman had applied them in the past, the 13 keys really should have favored Trump this cycle. So Lichtman may be out...but the Keys live on.
Turns out, Nate *does* know the first thing about turning the keys.
Yes! Nate can turn them better than Allan after all!
"the 13 keys really should have favored Trump this cycle."
Sure, that was obvious to me when I read Lichtman's 2024 edition. I carefully turned all the keys following all Lichtman's rules and making what I thought were reasonable subjective decisions and Trump was the obvious winner ------------ then Lichtman came out several weeks later and turned most of the keys for Harris! And lost the credibility for his Keys model probably forever. Sheeeeesh.
Did you see his Tweet today? Why does he dislike Nate Silver so much?
I saw a report on what must have been his Tweet. He does dislike Nate Silver: the old pioneer against the young Turk, I suppose.
Watch out, Eli is going to turn on Nate. JK, but I think it is likely he is the stats guy on one of the cable news networks on election days.
God, he's nuts. I don't know what his issue is.
Which is sad because in actual fact the Keys prevailed, just as they have every year except 2000 when Bush, thankfully, won fair and square, but the Keys called it for Gore. Lichtman's response was a Big Lie about Gore supposedly having the election stolen from him. You know, the same thing the left attacked Trump for...
Lichtman correctly called it for Trump in 2016. I think what happened is that he truly believed the Keys would indicate the winner, and really wanted Harris to win, so it was wishful thinking.
Which pretty much proves that the keys are subjective, and so are more like Lichtman's personal tarot deck.
No, it doesn't. There was a correct way of interpreting them. Lichtman just got it wrong.
That is a pretty good working definition of a subjective standard.
Bro saying Bush "thankfully" in 2024 is wild. Even conservatives hate Bush atp. Dragged us into a bunch of nonsense wars.
Really, you prefer Gore? The only candidate who'd be helped by a sex scandal?
Huh? What do you mean helped by a sex scandal? Why would it help him. This is like saying stormy Daniel’s helped Trump win 2024.
I just struggle to imagine that Gore could’ve been worse than bush. We’d probably still end up in Afghanistan but I doubt we’d have done Iraq.
It's very true. The Keys pointed to Trump. Check out the comments on YouTube to Lichtman's election night video - numerous people point this out.
Democrats no longer had the advantage in party affiliation and didn’t act like it. The bulk of their messaging was “Trump bad, Trump is Hitler, MAGA are fascists”, things that pander to their own base but do little to convince independents or moderates. No coherent agenda or policies. On the other hand what Trump did was create a tent including former liberals like RFK, Tulsi Gabbard, or Elon. Absolutely horrendous campaigning by the Dems and they need to take a hard look at the mirror.
1. Trump’s ONLY message was ‘Kamala crazy liberal’ literally.
2. Harris’ camp (Cheney, Kelly and lots of other former Republicans) was way bigger.
3. Maybe your ‘arguments’ did not matter one bit and it’s incumbency all over.
No, he's right. Trump had solid, specific visions and a reason to run. Kamala, like Hilbot before her, just seemed to want power and was too scared to give clear answers, preferring instead to sound like she was written by a committee
I wanted Trump to lose, because I think he could turn the US into an autocracy and that would be catastrophic for everyone. My policy positions, which are not so popular sometimes, takes a backseat to that.
So you see, I'm in a bind. Do I talk about environmentalism and how transgenderism, like being gay, is a brain structure thing and about building homes and universal healthcare? I'm honest, but my positions aren't popular.
Do I talk about democracy and keep everything else on the backburner? Trump supporters say I'm being hysterical on that and that I'm hiding my real agenda.
Meanwhile Benny Johnson on Twitter is saying "lol, sike, I actually do want Project 2025" and he's given a pass. And Trump just repeats stuff that isn't true until I just give up.
I think I'm held to a double standard. I think actually, that my standard is just always going to be set in a way in which I can't reach it while Trump is held to none.
You? Are you the one running for office?
Or is that supposed to be written from Kamala's point of view?
I wish Kamala had just spoken honestly about her positions. If someone is truly concerned about Trump harming democracy (which seems absurd to me, but not the point), the proper response is not to attack him for that. That is completely counterproductive - it just helps him, because those attacks are why we like him and why we voted for him.
Instead, the proper response is to promote a positive vision that would encourage people to vote for you instead. Kamala completely failed in this.
The more dangerous someone thinks Trump is, the more urgent it is to present a strong policy vision rather than attacking him for being dangerous.
Maybe Kamala Harris uses "Todd" as a pseudonym and actually wrote that comment. It certainly seemed to be from her perspective!
1. Disagree. As Nate laid out in one of his pieces Trump did have actual concrete policies (some of them are admittedly questionable at best) tied to his campaign, unlike Harris who went out of her way to avoid presenting herself in any such fashion.
2. True in a sense, but I’d say Trump did a much better job actually integrating these newcomers into his campaign whereas Cheney and Kelly seemed to simply serve as anti-MAGA pieces (again, basically her only talking point besides abortion) and really added not much else.
3. This is strictly opinion-based but I really think this can’t be the sole takeaway for Democrats, especially after 2016. They have to admit there is a backlash against them and change strategy or else right wing populism will overwhelm them. I’d be scared to run against a potential Vance-Gabbard ticket in 2028 under the current political climate.
3. Depends on the political environment. Maybe Trump/Vance will have the same approval ratings as Biden/Harris. Given their very low popularity ratings they will face headwinds very early on, especially when they try to enforce their P2025 agenda.
If you look at recent elections in other countries where the "anti-incumbent mood" was the primary reason for sweeping a party from power, the replacement has tended to become just as unpopular, very quickly. Examples are Starmer in the UK, Albanese in Australia, and Scholz in Germany. Trump/Vance might face the same fate.
Trump has disavowed Project 2025 several times.
So are you appealing to my trust in Trump’s sincerity/honesty?
Just pointing out it's not his agenda and there's no reason to think it is...
Definitely fair. I guess incumbents have lost in three straight elections and that could be a persisting trend in a frustrated electorate. What I tried to point out was Dems seem to have learned very little lessons from 2016 and I don’t know if they can do the same again.
The "former liberals" added to Trump's tent were less attractive to the bulk of the liberal side than Trump himself was, and had no recognizable liberal views to speak of anymore. Definitionally, it seems more like expanding the base than expanding the tent when you're adding people further to your ideological side than you are yourself.
Maybe Liz Cheney is also less attractive to the bulk of MAGA than Kamala (can the MAGA side here weigh in on this?), but if so it's not due to complete ideology mismatch since she's as low-tax and pro-life as ever.
The Selzer poll was the clear outlier leading up to the election. It made Democrats (myself among them) get their hopes and believe there would be some sort of polling error the other way this time. False hope.
It doesn't even seem like it should be complicated. Trump won because people are (rightfully) unsatisfied with the Economy and Immigration. I don't blame Biden, but the dollar went so much further in 2019 compared to today. And the Democrats unwillingness to get tough on immigration before it got out of control was the cherry on top.
The unthinkable thing here is that democrats never touched immigration because they thought the added Hispanics would eventually help them electorally, and at least under Trump they actually appear to have destroyed any obvious coalition for Dems to win a national election with.
No one is as personally aggrieved by illegal immigrants as legal immigrants.
This. Democrats are living in a bubble and that bubble is college educated white bourgeoise. The fact that they didn't understand this just demonstrates how few immigrants are in that bubble.
And even the few immigrants and working-class people who do enter their elite college-educated bubble very quickly learn to keep their mouths shut when it comes to politics. Source: this was me twenty years ago.
Would love to hear more about this. Why did you have to keep your mouth shut? What happened?
A few times I made comments that were mildly illiberal, like that I supported the police closure of illegal gypsy camps (a big issue back then in Britain), and I was met with a combination of wall-to-wall REEEE and condescending sneering. One guy who went on to be a Liberal Democrat politician said, and I quote, “Yes, I suppose you would think that because of your working class background” and wrote off my perspective without even asking my reasons. He'd never actually met a gypsy; I had, many of them. Eventually you learn that if you want to be able to get on with your life in peace you have to shut up. The same people were blindsided a decade later when Britain voted for Brexit.
There's something extremely toxic about the way your average college-educated upper to upper middle classs white liberal thinks of immigration - let's steal all the doctors and lawyers from the third world, make them our menial labour wage-slaves, and pat ourselves on the back as super progressive for how much browner we're making the country - except let's make sure *we* never actually see them and their brown skin. Oh, and definitely let's make sure they can't compete for our good white collar jobs.
Huh? Why would doctors and lawyers come here to do menial labor?
Is this a British thing? I see you use those silly-looking Brit spellings.
They're more likely to get picked to for visas when going through the legal immigration process because of their educational attainment, but they can't actually practice here. It's a big problem. It's common to all Western countries.
Doctors and lawyers would like immigrate legally. Couldn’t practice otherwise.
Exactly. It is a major issue for legal immigrants like me.
yeah this
The WSJ had an article on that very subject.
"they thought the added Hispanics would eventually help them electorally"
No... that's what Republicans have *said* the Democratic party's plan was, and it is taken for granted as truth. The argument provided is this: "why else would the Democratic party leave the border open?"
There are at least 2 reasons, and both were sufficient on their own: Democrats thought that tough border enforcement was a losing issue for them due to 1. leftist types who believe that tough border enforcement amounts to crimes against humanity and 2. Hispanic voters who (elite Democrats believed) would view it as a policy of discrimination against people like them. 1 is true, and will remain a liability for Democrats for a while. 2 is probably only somewhat true, but it's not true enough to prevent Trump from making significant gains (however, large scale deportation efforts could cause issues... one shouldn't conflate the impacts of border policy with internal deportation efforts that may end up targeting illegal immigrant relatives of Hispanic voters).
In any case, none of this is a quasi-great-replacement strategy.
The fact that many Hispanic people are culturally conservative has been well-understood for decades. This is why after the losses to Barack Obama, the Republican party believed that reaching out to Hispanic voters was the next step, and this is a significant reason why Cruz and Rubio were the two frontrunners in the 2016 primary.
The out of control border was a problem for people on both sides of the aisle. Comments in the New York Times and Washington Post, from traditional democrats, overwhelmingly very angry and upset about it. Border issues were common ground for both sides. Didn't help when Abbott
/DeSantis brought home the issue by airlifting /busing these people to New York.
Every time I read any of those articles and the comments, my reaction was the Democrats are going to lose the election. When they finally attempted to deal with it a few months before the election, it was too little, far far too late.
I tend to be a data-driven person, I know the economy is good. Inflation isn't affecting me, particularly. But I also do not live paycheck to paycheck, either.
The common man isn't data-driven, is worried about the day-to-day. Add to that Harris is a female, and not a particularly imposing or commanding female at that, it was too much for her to overcome. A strong male candidate might have done better. Whether he would have won, given the border and the economy, and the move to the right around the world as well as in the U.S. is the unknown. I suspect a good male candidate would have defeated Trump - who personifies deplorable.
It may yet, in the long term. It depends on how quickly they can get citizenship. I’m assuming Trump won’t try to deport anyone but criminals (and note that Venezuela won’t take them back).
In what sense do you mean "won't deport anyone but criminals?" In Trump's view, every illegal immigrant is a criminal that ought to be deported.
He has indicated, I think, that he plans to get violent criminals out first. But in no uncertain terms, his policy proposal is to remove all of the 15M (or 20M? 25M? I think the numbers he gives here vary depending on the day, and are believed to be much higher than the actual count) illegal immigrants currently in the US.
Walking around D.C. (another big blue city) today, I had the exact same experience Nate is talking about here. In 2016, the vibes felt apocalyptic. But today it felt mostly like any other day, perhaps a bit off, but nothing that unusual. And definitely not as weird as the day after the 2016 election.
It seemed normal enough to me, too; except when I went to the farmer's market locally an older woman waiting on me gave me the stink eye. Then I remembered I WAS wearing a red outfit, not a coincidence. She probably figured it out and was a Kamala voter.
Walking around Atlanta today was about the same in my experience, as opposed to 2016 which was definitely a different vibe here. People I interacted with were, business as usual with a hint of sympathy, “Try to have a good day.”
Jill Biden also wore a red outfit yesterday. Also probably not a coincidence.
It might have been the Trump pins and MAGA hat
I wasn't wearing the merch. Okay, I thought about it. But it seemed unwise and a little ------ rude. [:-)
Ha, you totally should!
The best thing about this is that the supposedly racist candidate, the guy who was supposedly dog whistling to white supremacists, was saved by a bunch of black and Hispanic voters who flocked to his cause.
Pleased that media lies and blatant propaganda finally caught up with them. Jonah Goldberg lying about the “nine guns trained on Cheney” was the cherry on top.
Mate, in 4 years it’ll be “STOP THE STEAL!!1!1!1” all over again. It’s incumbency.
Mostly Hispanic. Black voters voted Harris 88 to 12. In his best state it was 80 to 20.
A number of Black voters stayed home because of Gaza and Obama being condescending to Black men, which is not an endorsement of Trump.
Edit: And I want to make one other thing flamingly clear, by the way. I'm not scapegoating Hispanic people or saying people should be racist to them. I'm saying Dems should study why they lost so many of them.
Don't blow this out of proportion. Elon's twitter is even less like real life than the previous version.
Go check out Steve Kornacki on MSNBC last night.
How about a link to actual data or a specific statement?
Why in the world do you think it is reasonable to support a point by telling someone to scan 5 hours of coverage?
How do you know it was because of Obama? I'd like to hear more on this.
To be honest I'm probably sounding too confident here for a white man. Just the chatter I see on the internet.
Supposedly racist? Besides, the racist candidate and soon racist president did not win the respective majority of the minorities.
If he hadn't picked up a bunch of new hispanic voters he'd be toast. Let's see what the d's do with that information.
Trump won despite being Trump. Hayley would have wiped the floor in this environment.
No Trump, no racial realignment.
Do you have any evidence at all that minorities wouldn't have supported, say, Haley, at the same or higher level?
There is widespread supposition that Hispanic males were responding to Trump's macho persona.
Let’s see with down ballot candidates.
Trump won in MI/WI while it appears that the GOP Senate candidates fell short there.
Also, what's your argument? Trump cannot be racist since he gained (and not won!) among latinos?
Even before this most recent shift something like a third of Hispanics and Asians voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020.
Plus look at the trend line--he's been growing his share over time.
Is Trump racist? I don't think the trend bodes well for that argument.
Nate I did try to warn you. When you were getting constant polls indicating a 50/50 race, your job as a prognosticator was to examine the polling error that was consistent in 2016 and 2020. Your job was to examine any details, if any, that were offered by the pollsters as to what they thought the fix was to their massive misses. Then your job was to extrapolate that information to inform your own model or forecast of the election.
This is really simple stuff, one that lead me to easily predict Trump winning every swing state. The analysis you provided is not worthy of $10/m unfortunately. You seem like a nice guy, but it just isn't. You also changed your model midstream when Trump started to gain in the national forecast, which was really a sign of things to come.
You weren't willing to examine the hidden Trump vote. As one of those voters it's quite simple: The media portrayed Trump as literally Hitler. This means Trump voters have to hide away their vote from friends and family, to avoid being judged as someone who is bringing forth the destruction of the country. We know this isn't true, and in fact it's quite the opposite, but we remain silent.
I've unsubscribed for now but good luck in the future.
I’m not religious at all but I know for a fact that there is a tenth ring of hell for the “I told you so/I knew it all along/There were lots of obvious signs” hindsight-people like you.
Tell Dante I send my regards.
Don't usually use this platform so not sure if it's possible, but you can view my posting history. Also your reply is unhinged and that kind of attitude is a big reason your party is losing independents.
Okaaaaaay, I’m not exactly sure how admitting that publicising your predictions AFTER they happen is helping your argument, but fine :D
I’m German, by the way, so “my party” never stood a chance with American independents 😉
What's your party? Green?
I voted for them the last time, yes. I'm from Berlin, so I am your average big city liberal but I consider voting CDU (center right) in the next election which will take place in January (you might want to google "German government turmoil"). I like centrist positions, something I am missing lately in the American Republican Party.
I think the GOP is very centrist - why are you missing centrism from it?
I'm surprised - why would you be a Green if you're center right?
You'll notice that Nate actually listed Trump winning every swing state as the most likely outcome of the election. If you can't think in terms of uncertainty, maybe you can count that as a win. But the point of this blog is to think in terms of uncertainty.
Nate: "there's a lot of uncertainty rn but the most likely outcome of the election is that Trump wins all seven swing states"
You: WHy DIDn'T YoU pReDict thIs?
Strategically, the Democrats are going to have to embrace America's political realignment, not continue to fight it. Maybe a good start would be allowing an honest, competitive primary for the first time since 2008.
Wait, are you saying that the 2020 primary wasn't honest and competitive? What are you imagining, 40 candidates?!
Yeah not sure what people wanted from 2020 other than what happened. No super delegates, no clear party preference, just people voting
2024 was not
It wasn't for the GOP
Demographics trumps politics.
The college educated are a minority in this country. Michael Lind, Ruy Texeira, etc. have pointed out that the migration to the GOP is class based and color blind. The Dems are in for a bad couple of years while they figure out how to suppress their college educated base--as David Shor has pointed out over and over their values are not shared by the country at large.
If you look at the leaders of the GOP, and everyone in power, and the decisions they make, it is clear they are not color blind. But, they have swayed a certain amount of voters to vote for them through successful manipulations.
Yeah dude, anyone who thinks and isn’t “manipulable” blindly fills in boxes with a D next to them on the ballot. What an idiotic take. You are the sheep.
Thank you for your insights. Obviously, all those fearmongering T ads with false data (and rallies and press conference full of lies, how do those cats taste?) were designed for the critical thinking voters. I believe the fact checkers had the T claims ahead by x10 in false facts. Have a nice day.
I feel like I've encountered the Brian Civil War.
I'm Brian of Nazareth!
More like the Reformation / Counter Reformation of the Brians.
I'd stay out of it, it's a religion for the Brians clearly.
I'd try telling them both that this was a natural reaction to a party being tone deaf to the economic and structural issues relating to immigration not being properly managed during a time when there is a international rejection of incumbency because of the economic shocks caused by a lack of focus on infrastructure exacerbating the damages caused by a the Covid shutdowns and wars,
but that would only lead to them both preaching to me about how they are right and I should join them in their 'big tents', and I get enough of that from politicians when I present my usual "Your projecting your beliefs onto a borderline election result and a population that don't actually believe in your politics, they just put up with you, and you barely convinced them."
Clearly the GOP's new focus on minorities should be called the "Uncle Tom" strategy.
Not sure if Nate reads the comments here, but, you need some introspection on your model. As an analytics person, you didn't let the data speak for itself. You trashed and diminished a pollster like Rasmussen and called a lot of them "low-quailty."
This was not a 50-50 race. It was a blowout and an ass kicking. It was never a toss-up and the data would have told you that. So many signs that indicated this was Trump's election. Yes, you wrote CYA pieces, no different than Cohen at the NYT, but even your final "simulation" was wrong. She would have lost this election 8 out of 10 times.
I still admire your work, but Yourself, Selzer, Lichtman, Raltson, and any other so called politcal experts did a disservice to the industry. You missed the forest for the trees.
No, it really was a 50/50 race based on all polling.
No, it wasn't. You think it was because of public polling and some data folks told you it was. The same public polling that underestimated Trump in the past two election cycles.
Trump was tied or leading in the Popular Vote. He was tied or up in every Battle Ground state. Gallup the GOLD STANDARD of public opinion had this as a favorable election for Reps. Harris was deeply unpopular. She did not have the minority support she needed and was a part of an Administration that most of the country believe failed.
I credit people like Mark Halperin who continually told people that Trump was going to win, and it more than likely wouldn’t be close. This was based on internal polling, which Nate seemed to dismiss in an earlier write-up. I know my self-included, this wasn’t a shock at all and some knew it was coming.
Easy to be triumphant in hindsight.
This isn't about being triumphant.
It's not much of a shock - the polls only had a slight error. They underestimated Trump by a few points. But he was behind in the popular vote by a point or two according to the polls.
"But he was behind in the popular vote by a point or two according to the polls."
As of writing -
TIPP (Tied) ~ 4 Point miss
Ipsos (Harris+2) ~ 6 Point miss
New York Post (Tied) ~ 4 Point miss
NPR/PBS/Marist (Harris+4) ~8 Point miss
Forbes/HarrisX (Harris+2) ~ 6 Point miss
Emerson(Tied) ~ 4 Point miss
Reuters/Ipsos (Harris+3) ~8 Point miss
Morning Consult (Harris+2) ~ 6 Point miss
And some of these polls herded at the end. All of them under estimated Trump support. Yes, there was a few that had him leading. They were mocked.
Keep in mind.....it was an R+3.1 when Biden dropped out and Nate had Biden at sub 20% winning. His model needs to be revised. Again, this was not a 50-50 election.
I think he even changed his model when Trump started gaining in the national vote. These guys are all in their own bubbles.
And Ralston's was a complete cope job devoid of any data, giving Harris a .3% chance just so he could go on MSNBC and not favor Trump. The incentive structure of these guys is all out of whack.
OTOH, the most common model outcome, by a large margin, was 226-312, which looks to be exactly right
Marking Harris as a 50.3-49.7 favorite (or whatever it was) instead of 50-50 hasn't aged well.
Huh? It seems like it was perfectly vindicated by the results. The most likely single outcome occurred, and polls were within about 2 points of the final result in the important states.
Saying that a coin is fair isn't in any way impugned by the coin coming up heads on a single flip.
I mean when you are actually beholden to your customers they typically don't appreciate nonsense that obscures rather than illuminates.
I don't understand your problem with the third significant figure - what difference does it make?
First, in effect he's peddling a narrative that Harris has an advantage, however slight.
Second, there's always the question about how well the model reflects reality and whether or not the model's results are useful in examining reality. The slight Harris edge doesn't mean anything--do another couple of runs and it could just as easily have been Trump up by the same margin, or an exact tie.
In that light I think the best course with regards to intellectual honesty would have been to just call it 50-50.
He's just reporting the results. He made it clear that it was 50-50 and there was no meaningful difference.
I guess he's saying that to him a shift between 50-50 and 50.3-49.7 is a fundamentally different kind of shift than a shift between 51-49 and 51.3-48.7
I'm curious if Nate will ever comment on the absolute failure of polling models this year to track Trump supporters in them. Over the last 3 elections Nate and pollsters continually say that pollster have adjusted their methods to take their biases into account. Last night just clearly shows that is absolutely not the case- For the blue wall states the pollsters democrat bias was on average the same as 2020.
Atlas Intel was basically spot on in every state. Other pollsters were off by ~2-3 points which is a normal polling error (something Nate has written about in the past).
Yes this is my point- pollsters were still off in their methodology same as 2020. They didn't change anything to account for Trump voters that they missed in 2020.
Pollster's jobs isn't to just go out there and get a sample- it's to get a sample that's representative of the population. In the same way, Nate's job isn't to simply aggregate polls, but to weight the model in a way that takes into account historical information. When neither of them did that the polls were off and the aggregate was off.
I agree, they have been off in the same direction 3 Trump elections in a row and so there is probably something systemic they are continuing to miss even though they made adjustments to their methodologies from the past. That being said, I would argue they were a lot closer this time than in 2020 (RCP average had Harris +0.1 nationally and we will probably end up at Trump +1.5-2 once the western states are fully in with swing states also off by less than prior cycles). I think it is tough for Nate to calibrate his model to adjust for polling errors made in prior elections when the pollsters supposedly made these adjustments themselves. Obviously easy with hindsight.
Perhaps one area he needs to think about in future is whether he should be giving more weight to the national polls vs the swing state polls as they have tended to be more accurate in 2016, 2020 and 2024 (despite still underestimating Trump a bit). Obviously you need the state information to predict the Electoral College, but perhaps it needs to be adjusted based on national polling vs the other way around.
Fwiw I actually made a decent amount of money betting on Trump to win the popular vote at surprisingly attractive odds given the polling averages were showing a dead heat.
Yeah I just haven't seen any evidence of these supposed changes by pollsters.
The RCP national average is Harris +0.1. Trump is actually winning the popular vote by 3.5 points. The error at the national level is just as bad as previous cycles.
3.5 is not going to hold up - that will drop a bit.
Yup it's absolutely insane that these pollsters even make their money lol, maybe next election cycle I'll just start my own polling company since the bar seems to be in hell...
It’s like trying to predict the weather. Just because it’s wrong most of the time, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. Nate, unlike most pollsters, at least tries to inform people that it is, in fact, a prediction model and a model is only as good as the data it can collect. Something Nate fights hard for is a good data collection and representation. I think the guy has earned his paycheck.
The weather reports I read are accurate most of the time...
And if a weather station that has a major interest in selling raincoats keeps predicting that it's going to rain when it never does... do you think that station is doing a good job of altering their methodology to produce accurate results?
The analogy is one most people will understand. There were a lot of good predictions in Nate’s model even if the final result was wrong. There are so many variables involved it’s like trying to predict the shape of a cloud, you can get a general idea by studying wind patterns but don’t expect the model to tell you a cloud will be shaped like bunny.
I think you’re missing the forest for the trees here. We’re talking about huge nationwide polling errors- that pollsters NEVER ADJUSTED FOR.
You should do that. I'm serious. Put your money where your mouth is. Get some skin in the game.
Like in the Taleb book?
Like in the Taleb book.
It's easy for a blowhard to run his mouth about how easy someone else's job is. Okay, do it better then.
I'd definitely get it more correct compared to the leftist pollsters flooding the zone throughout the entire polling cycle, that's for sure.
Is Trump winning the popular vote by 3.5, when you project out all the votes that are left to be counted? In every recent election, there has been an illusion of Republican strength in the popular vote because California counts slowly, but that always changes by a few percent by the end.
Trump's margin may fall a bit but the primary components of his popular vote margin are overperformance in red states and narrowing the gap in blue states.
With California only 54% reporting, it's too early to claim this. It's already down to 3.3 points. It's likely that Harris nets ~2.5 million more votes out of California when that's all reported, The current margin is 4.8 millon. That would cut the PV margin to Trump +1.7. There are also ~8% left to report in very D states (NJ, IL, NY), and the late votes in these states seem to be more Harris-leaning than what is already in. Point being, let's wait till the votes are all in to draw conclusion about NPV and related poll error.
VA went from D +10 to D + 5. Also see NY, NJ, etc. I suppose 2.5 million out of CA is plausible given 2020 results but keep in mind that the Hispanic share of the vote is higher in CA plus big cities across the country saw depressed turnout, and CA has some of the biggest.
In addition AZ is only about 60% in currently and the remaining votes are supposed to favor Trump. That's why Kari Lake may have a chance.
I'm not using the 2020 results. I'm literally looking at what is reported in 2024 (a much narrower margin than in 2020) and projecting that outward to 100% of the vote. There's no reason to think that California, which is heavily D and has a longstanding culture of mail in ballots, will shift meaningfully from where it is. But it may. If what is outstanding leans more to Trump, that number will be smaller. If it leans Harris, it will be larger. Even with smaller margins out of NY, NJ, IL, Harris will still net some votes, and that will bring down the NPV margin for Trump.
CA has a large Hispanic population and we just saw significant migration of that voting bloc to Trump. In addition as Silver writes Trump made huge gains with minority/immigrants votes in the New York boroughs. CA also has a large immigrant population.
I know. And that is already showing up. The current margin is Harris +17, down from Biden +29 four years ago. My 2.5 million estimate is working with Harris' margin, not Biden's. The final margin of NY is ~Harris +12, which is down from Biden's +23 margin. This implies that CA votes around 6-7 points left of NY, so Harris+17 in CA seems plausible, and she could potentially increase that by a point or two. We will see.
Nate said over and over that he didn't know if pollsters had adjusted or changed their tactics to adjust for Trump overperforming his polls the last two times. I may be missing something but it seems like he said that stuff The last few weeks.
I don't agree with Nate's political viewpoints on lots of things. But he is not intellectually dishonest.
Really? I thought he had said effectively the opposite- that pollsters had claimed to have made corrections for Trump overperforming.
“failure of polling models this year to track Trump supporters”
I think you mean failure of polling.
Yes my bad, I meant failure of polling and polling aggregates.
As a democratic for 20 years I'm so beyond disappointed I'm just going to leave the party entirely. They clearly have no clue what they're doing.
Jamie Harrison, go fuck yourself.
it's literally only the Blue Dog Democrats that dont have the Heads up their you know whatsss
I have to say, it is worth the extortionate fees Nate charges just to get to see his lib followers melting down today!
The story was told when they selected Tim Walz as their VP pick instead of the highly popular Josh Shapiro. I don't want to say I told you so, from my many posts on this subject, but = I Told You So! They gave away an election, so as not to offend the far left antisemites in their party. And I couldn't be happier on the outcome.
In all fairness to Nate, his model’s highest frequency outcome was the exact outcome we appear to have gotten.
Wasn’t this outcome the second highest?
It was the second highest a month ago, but for the past week or two it was the highest.
Shapiro doesn’t make them competitive unless he’s at the top of the ticket. The real travesty is that they installed a generationally bad candidate.
That too. She was a completely empty vessel, who thought she could win an election by repeating "Trump Is Hitler" as an answer to every question on policy. She got what she deserved.
Shapiro wasn't going to swing Georgia or Michigan.
One problem with Shapiro, that I can see, is it you would have an African American and a Jew on the ticket (I'm an atheist but ethnically 100% Jewish) . I always thought that the GOP would have a way to dog whistle particularly with a Jew on the ticket.
Why would that be a problem? Kamala's husband is Jewish already. And so is Trump's daughter, for that matter.
Anyone who'd be that antisemitic is not going to vote GOP anyway, over us bombing the shit out of the Arab terrorists in the Middle East. They'd vote Jill Stein. Or maybe Harris, thinking she'd be less supportive of Israeli self-defense.
On the margins definitely I mean the word 'cabal', 'global elitist', 'Soros', etc... so you might be right that on the fringes like your proud boys and things like that it could be an issue. But at the same time it's not like they were going to vote for her anyway. So I will retract my statement
Also there's a difference between being anti zipnost and anti-Semitic.
I don't believe there is, at least not in practice where 99% of the time it's used as an excuse for antisemitism.
Given the extreme importance and centrality of Israel to us historically, religiously, and culturally for thousands of years, the two cannot meaningfully be separated.
You nailed it!
The positive about not picking Shapiro is that he isn't tainted by this election. I certainly agree that the Democrats have a lot of work to do, but my big fear is that the deck is stacked now. Another four years of right-wing justice and people being rewarded for turning a blind eye to white collar crime will make it harder to recover. Here come the oligarchs.
Right. Shapiro may well have been savvy enough to not want any bit of this sinking ship.
I thought before that might well be why he didn't agree to join the ticket, if that was how it was. The fundamentals were always way against the Dems, and once damaged by this election, he probably couldn't run again.
I live in NYC. Voted Republican for state and local election for first time in my life as a lifelong Democrat. Federally indicted mayor of the largest city in the country? Corrupt family and criminal courts? 12 officers to kill a fucking squirrel and a racoon? Prohibitively expensive to get a gun license? Benefits for the poor that the middle class do not qualify for? Pay to Play for the rich? Wealthiest 1% owning all the wealth? (Yes it happened while Democrats held office too) Honestly I flipped because of the squirrel, such a small thing but it was also such a huge thing. I voted for Kamala but I am not even sad that she got trounced. Replacing Biden AFTER the primary was political suicide and honestly the most undemocratic thing I have ever experienced. He is the only guy who has beaten trump btw.
For the record Democrats were happy when Adams got indicted while Republicans embraced him because they love criminals (see Brett favre campaigning, not to mention their convicted felon) and spun a narrative that he was politically persecuted for being against illegal immigration