Post

Avatar
calling it now: whenever nate releases the nyt/sienna it's gonna have it neck and neck, probably a smallish trump lead, and that lead is going to be basically entirely from, oh, let's say, a 40 to 50 point shift R among nonwhite 18-29s.
Avatar
this will be, fundamentally, unchanged from every single other poll this year, and you can belive it's a plausible reflection of the outcome in november or not. oh actually let me add one more thing: nyt/sienna will probably show trump narrowly winning women. maybe even white women
Avatar
Trump favored among people who could've voted in 2020 but didn't for some reason.
Avatar
Gotta wonder if that translates to actual turnout or not
Avatar
Avatar
The real question, dead serious not being a smartass, is what the fuck is Nate Cohn's obsession with people who were eligible but didn't bother to vote and slapping the label "likely voter" on them for no apparent reason?
Avatar
Fwiw Pew has a lot of good stuff on this if you're curious. Pollsters basically ask a bunch of Qs and then cross with vote history to see if likely to vote. IMO there are good reasons to be skeptical of the polls generally but NYT does know what they're doing. www.pewresearch.org/methods/2016...
2: Measuring the likelihood to votewww.pewresearch.org The survey literature has long shown that more respondents say they intend to vote than actually cast a ballot (e.g., Bernstein et al. 2001; Silver et al.
Avatar
See no I really don't think the NYT does know what they're doing. I think they used to but I really don't buy that anymore.
Avatar
Yeah fair enough, just trying to answer, like academically, why one might consider a person who hasn't voted in the past "likely to vote."
Avatar
Avatar
the issue w this method is that in key states, an issue on the ballot that has driven registration drives & voting patterns in similar demographics reflecting those newly registered voters actually voting how Trump overcomes abortion rights voters in AZ, NV & WI is not accounted for; OH?