TC, I am taking this post down because you claim that something is going to happen in the election that you cannot back up with data, and i don't think will be true. Given how low key the endorsement is we have no idea what is going to happen. In the future feel free to say things "I wonder if x will happen" or "x may happen" but not declare something to be true that you have no of knowing it to be so for at that point you are misleading people.
Today's video was filled with not only lots of 'hopium' but good information and frame for thinking of this election and motivation to get to work! Thanks so much Simon! PS Please see email I sent with questions and suggestions :)
File this under "screaming into the void" but it felt like the equivalent of running a correction buried inside the paper after the headlines got it wrong. I appreciate Cohn putting this out there, but the NYT has really mismanaged the storyline aspect of this (which Cohn even obliquely references in his cagey way). But yes, the underlying assessment of the data was better today than it's been.
On a brighter note, that memo and ad - whew boy! I'm actually looking forward to the debate now.
This was Cohn’s cya - “see I did say this” piece when his theory falls apart after the votes are counted in November. Even Cohn knows his unengaged voter theory is horse hockey and he must be seeing trend lines that worry him about a chicken farm’s worth of eggs being on his face post-election (b/c Cohn doesn’t care about democracy or issues, only his ego and reputation).
It’s also hilarious that he once again, even when hedging his bets, tries to argue how his narrative explains Dems winning (or greatly over performing) every actual election since 2021. The guy is just insufferable with the gaslighting.
We must do our utmost to re-elect President Biden. He is a man who knows the meaning of Honor and Sacrifice, and who holds a deep respect for all men and women who serve their country – especially those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, and their families.
The DREADFUL & UNTHINKABLE alternative is this:
On Memorial Day 2017, as they stood among those killed in Afghanistan and Iraq in Section 60 at Arlington National Cemetery, President Trump turned to John Kelly, his Chief of Staff, and said: “I don’t get it. What was in it for them?”
Let’s listen to what more John Kelly has to say about his former boss:
“What can I add that has not already been said?” Kelly said, when asked if he wanted to weigh in on his former boss in light of recent comments made by other former Trump officials. “A person that thinks those who defend their country in uniform, or are shot down or seriously wounded in combat, or spend years being tortured as POWs are all ‘suckers’ because ‘there is nothing in it for them.’ A person that did not want to be seen in the presence of military amputees because ‘it doesn’t look good for me.’ A person who demonstrated open contempt for a Gold Star family – for all Gold Star families – on TV during the 2016 campaign, and rants that our most precious heroes who gave their lives in America’s defense are ‘losers’ and wouldn’t visit their graves in France.
“A person that has no idea what America stands for and has no idea what America is all about. A person who cavalierly suggests that a selfless warrior who has served his country for 40 years in peacetime and war should lose his life for treason – in expectation that someone will take action. A person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators. A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law.
“There is nothing more that can be said,” Kelly concluded. “God help us.”
This assessment is from a Republican who worked with him closely. Yet, millions of Americans love this depraved, mentally and intellectual crass human being who will always be a disgrace to America long after he dies. Fox "News" has acted as a propaganda network and the other mainstream networks have tended to normalize him for too long. For God's sake, the Donald is mentally unstable and unfit in many ways. He was weird in his New York real estate days and has just gotten worse. Americans of all educational levels need to become more knowledgable about mental illness, so we can better spot the personality disordered and sociopaths among us and steer away from electing them into office. They're a danger to society in and of themselves, plus they're a magnet for other disordered individuals. GOP/MAGA politics has become a freak show. Extreme and sick. Thank you General Kelly for the loud and clear alarm.
I think part of the attraction of Donald Trump is that he gives his followers *permission* to unleash the worst and most vile aspects of themselves. (Which also explains why even our best efforts to thoroughly document Trump’s negative traits, horrible utterings and reprehensible behavior has *zero* effect on his sycophants. If anything, they will celebrate what they are told!)
Someone wise said: "The 2016 Presidential Election was a National Referendum on Decency – and Decency lost."
Thank you for all your work in support of democracy and Democrats. Question: what is your opinion on the effectiveness of phone banking/texting and postcards going to voters? I have participated in phone banking and postcard campaigns previously. I will continue to donate $$ as my budget allows — love your new fund for House races, which I have donated to already. Thx for any guidance.
Yes, it does. Campaigns can contact more likely voters if they have votes banked earlier. Then, they can extend the reach and win an election on the margins.
Isn't Nate Cohn responsible for building the NYT/Siena models that oversample and overweight the very people he's talking about in this op-ed? He says things like "Donald Trump has built his polling lead on..." but (to borrow a phrase) he didn't build that. Cohn did. Any polling lead he has (and in actuality he doesn't have one) is an artifact of the choices Cohn and his cohort have made.
YES, Joe. I was about to ask Simon to please comment on this issue. Over 2 weeks, I've studied the sample group -- because I keep thinking I'm crazy and don't want to look like an idiot. It appears to me that in hard numbers, there are more men than women in the NYT/Siena poll. Even though more women vote than men generally and there's no bump in the poll on states with an abortion referendum, where women have really turned out. I can't speak to the swing states polls specifically in terms of men v women voters. One way or the other, I hope Simon can put this NYT sample group women/men voters issue to rest.
I'm not sure if you're looking for info on M/F split in real electorates, but I've found these pages very helpful in contextualizing the model electorates created by pollsters: https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2020. That's for 2020, but you can edit the year in the URL to get any year back to 1976. Interestingly, men have in fact been slowly gaining share of the electorate, but in 2020 it was still 52/48 F/M nationwide.
Thanks, Joe. I know Roper but wasn't using it this past month. Will do.
I can't upload an attachment, which would be easier, but the Times/Siena poll starts with 51% men and 48% women registered voters. So their database is 4060 people: 2103 men and 1957 women. They call it unweighted -- I assume it's a clue that they know they have too many men. It should be the reverse 48% m and 51% w for registered voters, which they show is weighted. Then they have the same 48% m - 51% w breakdown for likely voters. That's suspect to me -- besides starting with more men in the first place.
College-educated men and women tend to vote in similar #s. More women, but 1% difference max, and I believe it's attributed to women living longer. But there's a major difference in non-college voting patterns by gender. Intuitively -- but I can't find the precise data -- it seems to me that 48-51 is 'off' for total likely voters vs registered voters. But I have no proof.
The Times says the variance is 5% in their polls. And if the bloody media didn't blast the NYT/Siena headlines far and wide, it wouldn't be so concerning. But I do believe this 4000 people population of poll takers generates some deep breathing to stay calm, if you are supporting Biden. It seems the poll takers are beginning to take responsibility for broadcasting some of their core assumptions about men voters looking to November. Maybe? Hope springs eternal.
The deeper one digs into the data, the more questions that arise -- and gender is so key a factor in many of their poll answers. If they typically have a 5% spread, I wonder what the variance really is in these 2024 polls.
Thank you for your fascinating and enlightening comments! I cannot imagine this M/F split is unproblematic, especially if the pollster is making absolutely no attempt to compensate for it in their model.
Hi. Thanks for your comment. I wanted to post this info so people can see it. This comes from the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutger's, def a respected resource. This link breaks down the info for presidential and non-presidential elections going back to 1964. It's self-reported voting among all eligible voters. It must be reasonably accurate this many years later. The spread has been 10 pts in 2012, 2016 and 2020 -- which is larger than I was expecting. Each year voting has increased for both genders, so in 2012 it's 61.6% of eligible men; 71.4% of women. In 2020, it was 72.5% of eligible men and 82.2% of women. Additionally, the actual voter pools are larger with women. These are total #s, not swing-state #s. I must check which of these states have an abortion referendum or even birth control also on the ballot. Few Republican women who support the referendum in Florida, for example, will vote for Trump. I don't buy that argument, but it's true that some R women can split their votes. I've read a lot of polls in my life, and I am lost over the assumptions that are being made by the NYT. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/facts/voters/gender-differences-voter-turnout
Love the DeNiro ad. One thing Trump has over Biden is his skills as a performer. Biden can’t touch that but DeNiro is an ideal surrogate in that department, which can only help.
Arnold Schwarzenegger has my vote for an additional spokesman on behalf of Biden’s Campaign. He is incredibly articulate – and he has strong credibility with a huge swathe of Republicans and Independent voters!
The Biden-Harris Campaign can benefit from lots of good surrogates. We’ve already got DeNiro and President Obama. We should be able to add dozens of high-level people who worked under Trump, and who have warned America about the existential danger of ever again allowing him anywhere near the Oval Office.
Trump may have skill as a performer but he is an empty suit with nothing uplifting or useful to offer; just violence, meanness, cravenness, revenge, retribution. And he is UGLY. And he screams his vituperation at the top of his lungs, spittle flying. I do not believe that is in any way attractive to a majority of human beings. For me, the problem is that rabid minority of MAGA GOP that continues to ENABLE his ugliness, in hopes some will rub off on themselves.
I don’t disagree at all, but he projects energy in a way that Biden just can’t. You may say that bland is better than evil and I agree, but we need energy too.
(Though I am hoping that most of us will do just about anything at this point to get AWAY from the noisy ugly vengeful fake. Like voting for bland but quietly competent.)
Thanks for highlighting Nate Cohn's admission to the inherent polling bias in the NYTs/Sienna monthly polls.
Many of us have written to Cohn and the Times about their polling bias time and time again. Today's admission by Cohn is his first effort to correct his polling. We should all see if Cohn actually corrects his polling bias going forward.
I would like to hear Nate Cohn comment the curious and surprising – and frankly very unlikely – M/F split that Anne Enke points out in her posts. Hopefully this will be one of many things that Mr. Cohn demands corrected in the next polls commissioned by the NYT.
Heather Digby over at Salon just wrote an excellent piece on this where she makes a strong case that all the negativity is actually being driven by....trump. Voters, she feels, are exhausted with him, he makes them feel negative, and they partly blame Biden ( because of course ya gotta find something to blame him for in every article ) for not slaying the zombie. She doesn't say it but there is a group of Dems who feel Biden's DOJ should have moved more quickly to go after trump. Now, he has had Federalist judges allowing him delays, because Alito and Thomas don't want to retire under a Democratic president. They see a chance for younger reactionary judges to solidify their legacy for a generation, and they are willing to help elect trump if that's what it takes. It is extremely unpatriotic. Because the actual economic numbers do not lie; people are doing well. She even compared Reagan's economy in 1984 when he won his landslide, and it was not as good as this one; 7% UE, 4% inflation, and 13% interest rate. I can tell you as a college grad in that era, with no health insurance and cut off my parents' as soon as I finished school, I could not find a job with benefits; I had an ingrown toenail and I worked the decks with the top of my shoe cut off to ease the pain, because I could not afford the surgery. The infection was so bad I could have easily developed a bone infection. I had to borrow money to get the surgery that I had to pay for up front, or the doctor would have turned me away. THAT is what the good old days were like under reagan.
I forgot that Sarah Longwell also delved into this and she actually thought it was good news, because there is time to move the needle on a lot of this stuff, which the campaign will do. IIRC, since a lot of the negative beliefs aren't true, facts might make a real difference. I'll be the first one to call that too optimistic, normally, but I think it might just break through this time because, well, the truth is good news for us.
The DeNiro ad was intense. It needs to be paired with a Morning in America series that uses your data on Life Goes Better under Democrats - and Biden. We need a positive vision along with reminders of the threat.
That’s for the convention…..right now we need to structurally tarnish Trump’s brand while we have such an enormous hard dollar advantage to do so….best to lay out second term vision after the bulk of voters finally start paying attention
Evan, are you implying that you have a better understanding of how to win this election than Joe Biden and his team? We are talking about a new round of media starting in a few weeks....calm down. This post is way over the top.
I think Evan has a point. The “not Trump” routine was not enough to get Hillary elected in 2016. I mean, I’m hardly a professional here, and granted we didn’t know then what we know now about how truly horrible Trump is (“not Trump” certainly should be enough now!), but I did hear plenty on social media back then from the “never Hillary” crowd about her arrogance. Resentment of that kind of arrogance is still out there - that’s why there are people who support RFK, Jr., Jill Stein and others, even knowing the risks. I can’t tell Team Biden how to run their campaign, but I do hope the Biden-positive messages will start coming out soon.
HI Tracy - 2024 is a very different electoral environment than 2016. Team Trump’s whole premise for this election is that if the election is about Biden, they win, if it becomes about Trump, they lose (you can hear them talk about this). Trump in 2016 could dominate the news cycle and social media via Twitter. Now, outside of political media (which is no longer followed by most voters) Trump is not really present because he’s no longer on Twitter and FB, insta no longer amplifies political news. So, Team Biden’s first job is to put Trump front and center and make it clear that this is the choice, Biden v. Trump. As Sarah Longwell says about her double haters who will likely decide the election (i.e., people who don’t like either choice) in reality most of them don’t hate Biden and do hate Trump. So, we win if we make things clear… We don’t need people to love Joe like we do, we just need them to pick him instead of Trump. Anyway, not up to us, Biden has a great campaign team.
I don’t view outlining Trump’s historic awfulness as defense…. I think it is actually the most important offense available to us. Not for nothing Evan, but the Obama team set themselves up for a fall victory by pounding the shit out of Romney in the spring and summer creating a brand problem he couldn’t overcome, and the they were able to effectively create a contrasting choice in the fall….and this strategy was possible because of a big fundraising gap that existed during that time period in the campaign. This isn’t an identical situation by any means, but it’s certainly instructive
The DeNiro ad may be intense, but it was not hyperbolic. My understanding of campaign “recipes” is first define the opponent in negative terms, then pivot to hope and positivity from your agenda. So…. I suspect the Biden team will go positive, and can legitimately do so!!
It seems like a key part of the task before the campaign is to clear up some of the voter amnesia about Trump and just how much of a freak he actually. For people who don't live and breathe this stuff, it has kind of faded. The ad is the equivalent of throwing a glass of cold water in someone's face.
Agree with the need to pair with a positive vision, and I'm sure they'll have that messaging in abundance too.
Sean, this is correct. We have 5 and a half months. We don't have to do everything all at once. Right now the campaign has decided we need to degrade Trump. It's smart, necessary. The time for selling Biden will come. We have time. Not everything has to happen at the same time. An ad run like this may go 2-3 weeks. Then the next one. We will see.
I am so relieved to hear that, as I still have trouble finding positive news coverage of President Biden with information that would be useful in discussions with others. Or with morons on the Yahoo News comments section who insist our President has dementia.
Is it me? Am I not looking in the right places? Have I not been thorough enough in my reading of Hopium? Here I find plenty to counteract the basso ostinato that Trump is ahead in the horse race, but so far have not found anything about the good President Biden has done for America. (I am new to Hopium, and have trouble navigating the Substack thing in general, so please forgive me if you actually have tons of content on President Biden’s accomplishments. And PLEASE point me to it like I’m 95 and just started using the internet yesterday).
The secretary of energy, Granholm, appointed Jigar Shah as the loan Director inside the department of energy and brings a wealth of experience from the private sector, and is doing a good job of articulating what he’s doing. He’s super positive and he is a CLEAN ENERGY warrior. https://x.com/JigarShahDC
"It seems like a key part of the task before the campaign is to clear up some of the voter amnesia about Trump and just how much of a freak he actually."
Well, I'm sure the campaign, White House, and supportive/willing media like MSNBC could keep a running calendar of "Four Years Ago Today" updates/reminders of whatever crap Trump was saying or doing that day and however many people were dying of COVID that day. MSNBC could even just let it rip with setting aside half-hour blocks every now and then of news re-runs.
Even sticking strictly with 2020 anniversary dates, and not mining the post-election and Jan 6 coup times, the event ad vibes of late 2020 were enough to get people and states to turn out Trump and decide they did not want a second season.
This is a brilliant idea!!! After that’s established, add to it what President Biden is doing today. Compare and contrast today with 4 years ago today.
This is a great read for kicking off the weekend! I hope the former guy shows up for the debate; the nation needs to see what a sharp contrast there is between our president and the orange lunatic.
Cool and collected, reasoned and confident -- well done, Simon (CNN). Don't know how you do it in the face of such nonsense, but so glad our side has you. Yes, indeed, would rather be us than them.
TC, I am taking this post down because you claim that something is going to happen in the election that you cannot back up with data, and i don't think will be true. Given how low key the endorsement is we have no idea what is going to happen. In the future feel free to say things "I wonder if x will happen" or "x may happen" but not declare something to be true that you have no of knowing it to be so for at that point you are misleading people.
Today's video was filled with not only lots of 'hopium' but good information and frame for thinking of this election and motivation to get to work! Thanks so much Simon! PS Please see email I sent with questions and suggestions :)
When I read Nate Cohn this morning, I thought “hmm…he sounds like another voting expert I’ve been following.”
I must admit that I had to pinch my arm twice and double-check that this latest NYT analysis really *was* written by Nate Cohn. Unusually excellent!
Killer headline: “A Polling Risk For Trump: His Advantage May Not Be As Stable As It Looks”
(And the candidate himself is even less stable...)
File this under "screaming into the void" but it felt like the equivalent of running a correction buried inside the paper after the headlines got it wrong. I appreciate Cohn putting this out there, but the NYT has really mismanaged the storyline aspect of this (which Cohn even obliquely references in his cagey way). But yes, the underlying assessment of the data was better today than it's been.
On a brighter note, that memo and ad - whew boy! I'm actually looking forward to the debate now.
This was Cohn’s cya - “see I did say this” piece when his theory falls apart after the votes are counted in November. Even Cohn knows his unengaged voter theory is horse hockey and he must be seeing trend lines that worry him about a chicken farm’s worth of eggs being on his face post-election (b/c Cohn doesn’t care about democracy or issues, only his ego and reputation).
It’s also hilarious that he once again, even when hedging his bets, tries to argue how his narrative explains Dems winning (or greatly over performing) every actual election since 2021. The guy is just insufferable with the gaslighting.
Wow could one of the Nate's be talking sense?! Better late than never I guess 😎
CYA - the Nate’s care about their reputation more than anything
We must do our utmost to re-elect President Biden. He is a man who knows the meaning of Honor and Sacrifice, and who holds a deep respect for all men and women who serve their country – especially those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, and their families.
The DREADFUL & UNTHINKABLE alternative is this:
On Memorial Day 2017, as they stood among those killed in Afghanistan and Iraq in Section 60 at Arlington National Cemetery, President Trump turned to John Kelly, his Chief of Staff, and said: “I don’t get it. What was in it for them?”
Let’s listen to what more John Kelly has to say about his former boss:
“What can I add that has not already been said?” Kelly said, when asked if he wanted to weigh in on his former boss in light of recent comments made by other former Trump officials. “A person that thinks those who defend their country in uniform, or are shot down or seriously wounded in combat, or spend years being tortured as POWs are all ‘suckers’ because ‘there is nothing in it for them.’ A person that did not want to be seen in the presence of military amputees because ‘it doesn’t look good for me.’ A person who demonstrated open contempt for a Gold Star family – for all Gold Star families – on TV during the 2016 campaign, and rants that our most precious heroes who gave their lives in America’s defense are ‘losers’ and wouldn’t visit their graves in France.
“A person that has no idea what America stands for and has no idea what America is all about. A person who cavalierly suggests that a selfless warrior who has served his country for 40 years in peacetime and war should lose his life for treason – in expectation that someone will take action. A person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators. A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law.
“There is nothing more that can be said,” Kelly concluded. “God help us.”
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/02/politics/john-kelly-donald-trump-us-service-members-veterans/index.html
.
God helps those who help themselves.
This assessment is from a Republican who worked with him closely. Yet, millions of Americans love this depraved, mentally and intellectual crass human being who will always be a disgrace to America long after he dies. Fox "News" has acted as a propaganda network and the other mainstream networks have tended to normalize him for too long. For God's sake, the Donald is mentally unstable and unfit in many ways. He was weird in his New York real estate days and has just gotten worse. Americans of all educational levels need to become more knowledgable about mental illness, so we can better spot the personality disordered and sociopaths among us and steer away from electing them into office. They're a danger to society in and of themselves, plus they're a magnet for other disordered individuals. GOP/MAGA politics has become a freak show. Extreme and sick. Thank you General Kelly for the loud and clear alarm.
I think part of the attraction of Donald Trump is that he gives his followers *permission* to unleash the worst and most vile aspects of themselves. (Which also explains why even our best efforts to thoroughly document Trump’s negative traits, horrible utterings and reprehensible behavior has *zero* effect on his sycophants. If anything, they will celebrate what they are told!)
Someone wise said: "The 2016 Presidential Election was a National Referendum on Decency – and Decency lost."
Thank you for all your work in support of democracy and Democrats. Question: what is your opinion on the effectiveness of phone banking/texting and postcards going to voters? I have participated in phone banking and postcard campaigns previously. I will continue to donate $$ as my budget allows — love your new fund for House races, which I have donated to already. Thx for any guidance.
Yes, it does. Campaigns can contact more likely voters if they have votes banked earlier. Then, they can extend the reach and win an election on the margins.
Isn't Nate Cohn responsible for building the NYT/Siena models that oversample and overweight the very people he's talking about in this op-ed? He says things like "Donald Trump has built his polling lead on..." but (to borrow a phrase) he didn't build that. Cohn did. Any polling lead he has (and in actuality he doesn't have one) is an artifact of the choices Cohn and his cohort have made.
I was wondering the same thing. Also, surprised Nate Cohn didn't do his usual polling is terrible for Biden.
Spot on.
YES, Joe. I was about to ask Simon to please comment on this issue. Over 2 weeks, I've studied the sample group -- because I keep thinking I'm crazy and don't want to look like an idiot. It appears to me that in hard numbers, there are more men than women in the NYT/Siena poll. Even though more women vote than men generally and there's no bump in the poll on states with an abortion referendum, where women have really turned out. I can't speak to the swing states polls specifically in terms of men v women voters. One way or the other, I hope Simon can put this NYT sample group women/men voters issue to rest.
I'm not sure if you're looking for info on M/F split in real electorates, but I've found these pages very helpful in contextualizing the model electorates created by pollsters: https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2020. That's for 2020, but you can edit the year in the URL to get any year back to 1976. Interestingly, men have in fact been slowly gaining share of the electorate, but in 2020 it was still 52/48 F/M nationwide.
Thanks, Joe. I know Roper but wasn't using it this past month. Will do.
I can't upload an attachment, which would be easier, but the Times/Siena poll starts with 51% men and 48% women registered voters. So their database is 4060 people: 2103 men and 1957 women. They call it unweighted -- I assume it's a clue that they know they have too many men. It should be the reverse 48% m and 51% w for registered voters, which they show is weighted. Then they have the same 48% m - 51% w breakdown for likely voters. That's suspect to me -- besides starting with more men in the first place.
College-educated men and women tend to vote in similar #s. More women, but 1% difference max, and I believe it's attributed to women living longer. But there's a major difference in non-college voting patterns by gender. Intuitively -- but I can't find the precise data -- it seems to me that 48-51 is 'off' for total likely voters vs registered voters. But I have no proof.
The Times says the variance is 5% in their polls. And if the bloody media didn't blast the NYT/Siena headlines far and wide, it wouldn't be so concerning. But I do believe this 4000 people population of poll takers generates some deep breathing to stay calm, if you are supporting Biden. It seems the poll takers are beginning to take responsibility for broadcasting some of their core assumptions about men voters looking to November. Maybe? Hope springs eternal.
The deeper one digs into the data, the more questions that arise -- and gender is so key a factor in many of their poll answers. If they typically have a 5% spread, I wonder what the variance really is in these 2024 polls.
There's an abortion question in the data and male responses are 880 vs about 810 for women in the swing-states answers. That's called women knowing when to keep their mouths shut and just answering the question in the voting booth -- as they have been doing in record #s. Thx, Joe for Roper suggestion. I'll check it out. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/13/us/elections/times-siena-poll-registered-voter-crosstabs.html
Thank you for your fascinating and enlightening comments! I cannot imagine this M/F split is unproblematic, especially if the pollster is making absolutely no attempt to compensate for it in their model.
Hi. Thanks for your comment. I wanted to post this info so people can see it. This comes from the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutger's, def a respected resource. This link breaks down the info for presidential and non-presidential elections going back to 1964. It's self-reported voting among all eligible voters. It must be reasonably accurate this many years later. The spread has been 10 pts in 2012, 2016 and 2020 -- which is larger than I was expecting. Each year voting has increased for both genders, so in 2012 it's 61.6% of eligible men; 71.4% of women. In 2020, it was 72.5% of eligible men and 82.2% of women. Additionally, the actual voter pools are larger with women. These are total #s, not swing-state #s. I must check which of these states have an abortion referendum or even birth control also on the ballot. Few Republican women who support the referendum in Florida, for example, will vote for Trump. I don't buy that argument, but it's true that some R women can split their votes. I've read a lot of polls in my life, and I am lost over the assumptions that are being made by the NYT. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/facts/voters/gender-differences-voter-turnout
This is wonderful information. I’m very grateful for your link!
Bingo
Love the DeNiro ad. One thing Trump has over Biden is his skills as a performer. Biden can’t touch that but DeNiro is an ideal surrogate in that department, which can only help.
Arnold Schwarzenegger has my vote for an additional spokesman on behalf of Biden’s Campaign. He is incredibly articulate – and he has strong credibility with a huge swathe of Republicans and Independent voters!
The Biden-Harris Campaign can benefit from lots of good surrogates. We’ve already got DeNiro and President Obama. We should be able to add dozens of high-level people who worked under Trump, and who have warned America about the existential danger of ever again allowing him anywhere near the Oval Office.
Trump may have skill as a performer but he is an empty suit with nothing uplifting or useful to offer; just violence, meanness, cravenness, revenge, retribution. And he is UGLY. And he screams his vituperation at the top of his lungs, spittle flying. I do not believe that is in any way attractive to a majority of human beings. For me, the problem is that rabid minority of MAGA GOP that continues to ENABLE his ugliness, in hopes some will rub off on themselves.
I don’t disagree at all, but he projects energy in a way that Biden just can’t. You may say that bland is better than evil and I agree, but we need energy too.
There was a certain Austrian with a funny mustache who also "projected energy"…
Exactly!
We are in agreement!
(Though I am hoping that most of us will do just about anything at this point to get AWAY from the noisy ugly vengeful fake. Like voting for bland but quietly competent.)
I like Newsome as the attack dog!
The newsletter is great but we need a community.
Closed versions of open source Mastodon are easy to set up.
Simon very impressive how you kept your cool and didn’t laugh out loud at some of Mark Lauders answers on that CNN interview. Excellent composure.
Simon
Thanks for highlighting Nate Cohn's admission to the inherent polling bias in the NYTs/Sienna monthly polls.
Many of us have written to Cohn and the Times about their polling bias time and time again. Today's admission by Cohn is his first effort to correct his polling. We should all see if Cohn actually corrects his polling bias going forward.
I would like to hear Nate Cohn comment the curious and surprising – and frankly very unlikely – M/F split that Anne Enke points out in her posts. Hopefully this will be one of many things that Mr. Cohn demands corrected in the next polls commissioned by the NYT.
Any thoughts on the bazaar results of the Guardian poll on the economy? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/22/poll-economy-recession-biden
Heather Digby over at Salon just wrote an excellent piece on this where she makes a strong case that all the negativity is actually being driven by....trump. Voters, she feels, are exhausted with him, he makes them feel negative, and they partly blame Biden ( because of course ya gotta find something to blame him for in every article ) for not slaying the zombie. She doesn't say it but there is a group of Dems who feel Biden's DOJ should have moved more quickly to go after trump. Now, he has had Federalist judges allowing him delays, because Alito and Thomas don't want to retire under a Democratic president. They see a chance for younger reactionary judges to solidify their legacy for a generation, and they are willing to help elect trump if that's what it takes. It is extremely unpatriotic. Because the actual economic numbers do not lie; people are doing well. She even compared Reagan's economy in 1984 when he won his landslide, and it was not as good as this one; 7% UE, 4% inflation, and 13% interest rate. I can tell you as a college grad in that era, with no health insurance and cut off my parents' as soon as I finished school, I could not find a job with benefits; I had an ingrown toenail and I worked the decks with the top of my shoe cut off to ease the pain, because I could not afford the surgery. The infection was so bad I could have easily developed a bone infection. I had to borrow money to get the surgery that I had to pay for up front, or the doctor would have turned me away. THAT is what the good old days were like under reagan.
I forgot that Sarah Longwell also delved into this and she actually thought it was good news, because there is time to move the needle on a lot of this stuff, which the campaign will do. IIRC, since a lot of the negative beliefs aren't true, facts might make a real difference. I'll be the first one to call that too optimistic, normally, but I think it might just break through this time because, well, the truth is good news for us.
The DeNiro ad was intense. It needs to be paired with a Morning in America series that uses your data on Life Goes Better under Democrats - and Biden. We need a positive vision along with reminders of the threat.
That’s for the convention…..right now we need to structurally tarnish Trump’s brand while we have such an enormous hard dollar advantage to do so….best to lay out second term vision after the bulk of voters finally start paying attention
Evan, are you implying that you have a better understanding of how to win this election than Joe Biden and his team? We are talking about a new round of media starting in a few weeks....calm down. This post is way over the top.
I think Evan has a point. The “not Trump” routine was not enough to get Hillary elected in 2016. I mean, I’m hardly a professional here, and granted we didn’t know then what we know now about how truly horrible Trump is (“not Trump” certainly should be enough now!), but I did hear plenty on social media back then from the “never Hillary” crowd about her arrogance. Resentment of that kind of arrogance is still out there - that’s why there are people who support RFK, Jr., Jill Stein and others, even knowing the risks. I can’t tell Team Biden how to run their campaign, but I do hope the Biden-positive messages will start coming out soon.
HI Tracy - 2024 is a very different electoral environment than 2016. Team Trump’s whole premise for this election is that if the election is about Biden, they win, if it becomes about Trump, they lose (you can hear them talk about this). Trump in 2016 could dominate the news cycle and social media via Twitter. Now, outside of political media (which is no longer followed by most voters) Trump is not really present because he’s no longer on Twitter and FB, insta no longer amplifies political news. So, Team Biden’s first job is to put Trump front and center and make it clear that this is the choice, Biden v. Trump. As Sarah Longwell says about her double haters who will likely decide the election (i.e., people who don’t like either choice) in reality most of them don’t hate Biden and do hate Trump. So, we win if we make things clear… We don’t need people to love Joe like we do, we just need them to pick him instead of Trump. Anyway, not up to us, Biden has a great campaign team.
I don’t view outlining Trump’s historic awfulness as defense…. I think it is actually the most important offense available to us. Not for nothing Evan, but the Obama team set themselves up for a fall victory by pounding the shit out of Romney in the spring and summer creating a brand problem he couldn’t overcome, and the they were able to effectively create a contrasting choice in the fall….and this strategy was possible because of a big fundraising gap that existed during that time period in the campaign. This isn’t an identical situation by any means, but it’s certainly instructive
Good to learn this.
The DeNiro ad may be intense, but it was not hyperbolic. My understanding of campaign “recipes” is first define the opponent in negative terms, then pivot to hope and positivity from your agenda. So…. I suspect the Biden team will go positive, and can legitimately do so!!
It seems like a key part of the task before the campaign is to clear up some of the voter amnesia about Trump and just how much of a freak he actually. For people who don't live and breathe this stuff, it has kind of faded. The ad is the equivalent of throwing a glass of cold water in someone's face.
Agree with the need to pair with a positive vision, and I'm sure they'll have that messaging in abundance too.
Sean, this is correct. We have 5 and a half months. We don't have to do everything all at once. Right now the campaign has decided we need to degrade Trump. It's smart, necessary. The time for selling Biden will come. We have time. Not everything has to happen at the same time. An ad run like this may go 2-3 weeks. Then the next one. We will see.
I am so relieved to hear that, as I still have trouble finding positive news coverage of President Biden with information that would be useful in discussions with others. Or with morons on the Yahoo News comments section who insist our President has dementia.
Is it me? Am I not looking in the right places? Have I not been thorough enough in my reading of Hopium? Here I find plenty to counteract the basso ostinato that Trump is ahead in the horse race, but so far have not found anything about the good President Biden has done for America. (I am new to Hopium, and have trouble navigating the Substack thing in general, so please forgive me if you actually have tons of content on President Biden’s accomplishments. And PLEASE point me to it like I’m 95 and just started using the internet yesterday).
Tracey,
Suggest you read “ What President Biden Did today” on Substack and the White House.gov briefing room to read up on what he’s been up to.
Thanks!
The secretary of energy, Granholm, appointed Jigar Shah as the loan Director inside the department of energy and brings a wealth of experience from the private sector, and is doing a good job of articulating what he’s doing. He’s super positive and he is a CLEAN ENERGY warrior. https://x.com/JigarShahDC
"It seems like a key part of the task before the campaign is to clear up some of the voter amnesia about Trump and just how much of a freak he actually."
Well, I'm sure the campaign, White House, and supportive/willing media like MSNBC could keep a running calendar of "Four Years Ago Today" updates/reminders of whatever crap Trump was saying or doing that day and however many people were dying of COVID that day. MSNBC could even just let it rip with setting aside half-hour blocks every now and then of news re-runs.
Even sticking strictly with 2020 anniversary dates, and not mining the post-election and Jan 6 coup times, the event ad vibes of late 2020 were enough to get people and states to turn out Trump and decide they did not want a second season.
This is a brilliant idea!!! After that’s established, add to it what President Biden is doing today. Compare and contrast today with 4 years ago today.
This is a great read for kicking off the weekend! I hope the former guy shows up for the debate; the nation needs to see what a sharp contrast there is between our president and the orange lunatic.
I hope Trump is required to take a COVID test before getting anywhere near the President!
I think Biden wins whether Trump shows up or not. I'm betting there will be a huge audience.
I think they should do a weigh-in, and measure each candidate’s official height..
Cool and collected, reasoned and confident -- well done, Simon (CNN). Don't know how you do it in the face of such nonsense, but so glad our side has you. Yes, indeed, would rather be us than them.
Trump and Republicans have been screaming about "The Border!"
Well, there is some really good news:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/24/us-mexico-border-crossings
Hopium we all share last night's video with our networks and this too. https://youtu.be/OiwJ3kTMX60?si=SpsrlA4aJU_WGcnr