Uncle Dude: 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?

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.

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

Trump favored among people who could've voted in 2020 but didn't for some reason.

Gotta wonder if that translates to actual turnout or not

I'll take the "or not."

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?

Like is the non-response/incomplete response problem so bad that this is just sticking as many fingers in as many holes as they can to try and stop the whole thing from collapsing?

This right here. If polling isn't useful people will stop paying for it, therefor it must work.

But if polling is too far off from reality no one will pay for it either, unless the grift here is one last cycle of money making

Did they vote in this year's primary? Or in 2022? I know there are some first-time voters in every election, but I really do think you need a track record to be LV.

Question That Nate Aintanswerin'

From what I've read from previous Cohn stuff a lot of them just straight up have never voted. Yes some are brand new voters, but Cohn is positing people that just havent fucking bothered for multiple cycles are all of a sudden gonna show up in November. Its a bold thesis!

Nate Cohn: “let’s just add in a big ol dollop of ‘never fucking voted before but super to the right’ into this”

It does seem odd to include among that sample. Feels….thumb on scale-y

Presumably his LV screen isn't "opinions of likely voters" & more "a blend of respondents that reflects a likely blend of voters"

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.

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.

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."

I get it, no worries.

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?

Post