Can someone please explain to me why people complain about receiving so many alarm-filled text messages and emails? Why are people still getting these things? It's the simplest thing in the world to fix. If it is a text, you delete the message and say BLOCK NUMBER and report spam. I get literally zero texts of this kind because they all go to my spam folder. If it is an email, scroll down and click UNSUBSCRIBE ALL. They are required by law to have this. Unsubscribe every time and they will very soon stop. Again, I get no emails of this sort. None. Zip.
Please. Someone explain to me why this appears harder for other people than me. I'm not trying to be patronizing, I swear. I'm just mindboggled.
"It's Gavin Newsom! Are you still a Democrat? We have a 400% MATCH in the next hour!" STOP2QUIT
"If we get just $4000 in the next hour we will CRUSH Tr*mp!" STOP2QUIT
"Did you see the new polls? We're BEGGING you to read this." STOP2QUIT
"Hey, It's Dad! Did you remember to see if the package arrived. If you could bring them inside before they get too hot that would be great xoxo" STOP2QUIT Oh no wait...
Better yet, never give campaigns your cell phone number in the first place. Same goes for email address. Unless, of course, you prefer to be available to their frequent, automated outreach.
This is my point though: there is no way in the good year of 2024 to be effective at this work without giving out your phone number and email. But the issue is moot if you just UNSUBSCRIBE as soon as the first few texts or emails come in. I don't ever see the automated outreach because I have either opted out or it goes to spam. It is in fact possible to give out your info and also avoid getting bombarded, in fact it is as simple as a few clicks, so.. I'm just so confused as to how people are having trouble.
As we know, western North Carolina was hit hard by Hurricane Helene, with many communities devastated. Yesterday, State Representative Caleb Rudow (D) from Buncombe County, proposed a bill to allow hurricane victims a 5-day extension to register to vote and a 3-day grace period for mail-in ballots.
Every single Republican in North Carolina’s House voted NO.
Except for Asheville, I understand that much of the hurricane-stricken region in the western part of the state is heavily Republican. I wouldn’t be surprised if people vent their anger at the Republican House representatives that are on the ballot this November. I wonder whether this will come back to bite them in the election – and not just in the presidential?
There’s a rather fascinating analysis of the possible election impact here.
Granted, the damage and aftereffects of the hurricane are hardly uniform, so a regional analysis of county trends might not to be granular enough to give a clear answer. But certainly Hurricane Helen, and Republican political response – or rather, lack of such – is sure to have a major impact.
When Helene decimated NC, I did a quick tally of 2020 voters in the affected counties, and they’re heavily Republican. Asheville is a blue dot in a very red area.
The GOP needs Western NC to vote, so this seems like cutting off their own noses to spite their faces.
True. When NC drew district lines after the last census in 2020, they again drew a line between Asheville and some neighboring towns all of which are red.
I went to a local Dem event in person this evening. One of guest speakers was the guy in charge of day-to-day operations for Mecklenburg Co. Board of Elections. Super nice guy who genuinely wants to make it as easy as possible for voters to vote. He made sure that everyone in the audience knew that there is an exemption form that people can fill out if they don't have a voter ID so that they can still vote. Oh, and he is a strong proponent of getting as many people to vote early as possible!
Each of NC's 100 counties has a 5-member board and they are all working very hard to make the election process go as smoothly as possible for any aspects over which THEY have control. This link discusses the changes the NC State BoE adopted this week for the 13 counties most effected by Helene:
However as ArcticStones pointed out, the opposite is true for the GOP Supermajority in the state legislature! My soon to be elected state representative was also at the meeting tonight. She thinks that when the GOP inevitably tries to claim that the Democrats did the voters in western NC wrong, that this vote not to give voters more time WILL come back to bite them.
Does anyone know what polling to re-elect Senator Sherrod Brown looks like? Are unions and veterans actively canvassing, phone banking, and working on GOTV there? I’ve been up since 3am as the result of current events anxiety. I’ve already mailed 30 postcards for Will Rollins and Laura Gillen. Many more to do today.
Simon has said several times over the past few weeks that Sherrod Brown is holding on so far. Nobody is taking anything for granted, and we're raising money for him here, but he's in about a good a position as we could hope for. And he's running against a terrible candidate.
Hi Linda, Much of the civilised world is anxious about this election, me included. If it's the Quinnipiac polls that are concerning you, a word of reassurance. The cross tabs show a much higher performance for Trump amongst 18 to 30 year olds than some analysts think credible. Correcting this gives Harris the lead. The antidote is to persuade as many young people as possible to vote - because in actuality they have a much higher likelihood of voting for Harris (contrary to the poll). Very best wishes from an anxious Brit.
Really, I had thought, without any specific evidence to back it up, that they were more left-leaning. That is why I was quite concerned yesterday as well. I hope you are correct about the way they model.
It's weird, though, because they didn't change their modelling to higher Repub turnout based on lower Dem enthusiasm, instead they changed their model to higher Repub turnout... and then found lower Dem enthusiasm. Seems backasswards but I've kinda given up for this year on attempting to parse these people's explainations.
Sherrod Brown is ahead by 2.3 % in the 538 poll average. Jon Tester is 5.4 % behind. There are three Senate candidates with better chances than Tester: Dan Osborn (independent) in Nebraska, Colin Allred in Texas and Debbie Mucarsel-Powell in Florida. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/senate/2024/ohio/general/
I'd just like to provide the periodic reminder to fellow Hopium denizens of some things Simon has pointed out in the past:
1) That many poll averages in recent Senate races have been spectacularly wrong. Susan Collins was behind by 6% in '20 and went on to win by 9%, an overperformance of 15%. (Yes, read that again. Not a typo.) In '22, Maggie Hassan overperformed by 8%, and Mark Kelly and John Fetterman overperformed by 5%. The list goes on.
2) Some polls are respectable, and some are garbage. All of them get included in the averages. The fewer unbiased polls there are, the more likely to be off the averages are. Montana has had only one high-quality nonpartisan poll in MONTHS, same with Nebraska, Maryland too few as well. Those averages are beyond suspect. You can't draw a good line with only one or two dots. Ohio, Texas, and Florida have enough for us to BEGIN to draw a conclusion, while Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, and Nevada have a wealth of data.
3) The size and shape of the state makes each race totally different. States like New Hampshire or Vermont or the Dakotas or Montana are the size of one or two Congressional districts, so they don't behave the same as bigger media markets like Georgia or Florida or Pennsylvania.
4) Strong incumbents can often "close the deal" and swing more people who voted for them before back to them at the end, so their polls are WAY more likely to diverge from their last total than someone unknown who doesn't have that name recognition.
Linda if you are worried about OH and Sen. Brown's race, Postcards to Voters (www.postcardstovoters.org) is writing postcards for him and Activate America (www.activateamerica.vote) is writing GOTV postcards to key congressional districts in OH. And I'm sure there are lots of phonebanks - although none of them at 3 am.
From Michael McDonald’s newsletter regarding the early vote in PA and NV:
“We still have nearly a month of early voting. Dynamics will change as more mail ballots are cast and in-person early voting starts in earnest. My best read is that these data are what we would expect to see if Harris is competitive in states like Nevada and Pennsylvania. These early voting data as of now appear to confirm polling averages for these states that show a tight election and give us greater confidence the poll averages are providing an accurate read of the election in these states.
If I were to offer an additional poll insight it is that a big polling miss due to systematic polling bias does not appear to be in the cards at the moment, at least in Trump’s favor. If Democrats lag in the early vote, I’m more likely to believe a polling miss in Trump’s favor.”
Basically, his very very early analysis of the vote is that Harris is building the blue wall in the early vote so far and that points to a close, competitive election that isn’t favoring Trump right now. Still too early to know much of anything, but the data certainly isn’t showing a Trump overperformance of the polls.
The Early Vote has now passed 3 million! Lots of good info on Michael McDonald’s Election Project website. Click on the state name you want, and you can see party and gender breakdown of the early vote, as well as breakdown by age and ethnicity for the states that report this data:
Edit: I recommend looking at McDonald in conjunction with Tom Bonier’s TargetSmart analysis of the Early Vote. A key difference is that Tom uses "Modeled Party", which is based on a lot of additional data. Again, lots of detail. On his TargetEarly dashboard, you can select by state and the type of data you want to examine. For example Pennsylvania...
I am so busy -- we all are. But I did hop on last night's Hopium presentation and am so glad I did. I needed an antidote to Twitter/X and all of the doomsday tweets, many by fellow Democrats. After I left the Hopium Zoom, I went to our Markers For Democracy Postcarding Bootcamp where we had over 150 new postcard writers! Hopefully some of them will join us at tonight's Hopium Winning The House Zoom where we will write postcards and phonebank for the awesome Sue Altman, one of my favorite candidates this cycle.
Do you know if MFD has decided school board races they’re supporting? 🤞 they support our excellent candidate running against our Moms For Liberty endorsed incumbent.I did submit info when I saw request on the Grassroots email.
Ellen, I have several family members who fit into your description of "my fellow Democrats". They always vote. They always support Democrats. They always live in anxiety and panic. I personally believe it's because they live in Red Areas that are information-free bubbles of doom. I have learned to only offer consolation if they ask for it. When they ask, I go over all the data that says we're doing better than we think. Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 and 2020. Trump lost the House in 2018 and 2020. Trump's hand-picked MAGA candidates lost the Senate in 2020 and 2022. He's now weaker, more constricted and more addle-brained than ever. As our VP says all the time, he's a loser.
Also, I have family members who live in Blue States. They are noticeably less pessimistic than the rest of the family. I feel my part is to be an information warrior.
The Trump slight 'blip' in polling performance (if more than the vagaries of polling) coincides with the disgustingly dishonest claims about FEMA and funding being stolen for migrants. This has since been robustly fact checked and hopefully some of those who may have been initially seduced by these lies will now consider their selection in the round and decide on Harris. US fundamentals are really strong. A Harris presidency really could get off to a flying start. I'm keeping fingers (and everything else) crossed. Thank you all for your heroic efforts!
This is a great presentation! I agree with Simon that we have to do more since there is not another debate. Matthew Dowd equated one debate to 20 days campaigning on Deadline WH several weeks ago.
We have to keep pushing, even if we have already done a lot. Again, here in NC where I am volunteering, we are pushing hard each of the next four weekends to mobilize voters. I am in Charlotte, because Mecklenburg County is a key county for the campaign. Please consider coming here on one of these weekends if you are able. I am happy to help in any way that I can. Here is the website to sign up. Please consider! You can join me in being part of the team that wins NC!
Thank you Simon. I watched the discussion live yesterday and am listening again today. I've received several texts and email from groups trying fundraise off this supposed "surge" in Trump support and it pisses me off. It's lazy and irresponsible. Thankfully I have Hopium to keep me grounded and cut through the bullshit. Mailed 5 more letters to NC today!
SOMETHING SPECIAL for fellow Hopium denizens: I have been working on developing a predictive model for Senate races! I cannot divulge the details, because obviously it is proprietary knowledge and there has not yet been any binding agreement as to whether/how it shall begin to be published publicly. Yet I have the OK to share some of my research, which is of course based off of publicly available data. The research goes back for the last half-century, and so far the model has been tested on the last 400 Senate races. The current version has a 98.3% accuracy rate over those last 400 races, and the accuracy increases as we get closer to the present day. Yes, you read that right. Very exciting, and since I keep finding myself smacking down people in internet comments over the Senate races, I'd better bring some receipts and explanations, for anyone who is interested.
Here is what I have discovered in my research (that I am able to share):
1. The margin of victory for the Presidential candidate is massively overrated as a predictor, and the margins ARE NOT LINEAR. So if President X wins one state by 2%, another by 5%, and a third by 15%, that does NOT mean that is the order in which those states are competitive for Senate races. This is the BIGGEST MISTAKE people are making, BY FAR. It is one component regarding which candidate is favored, but only one. My research shows it takes up until the margin is something like 20% for a race to start getting truly out of reach. Senate races are viewed as state affairs by many voters, similar to governor's races, and they will vote party loyalty for President but are more likely to give a vote to an opposition candidate with a unique "brand."
2. The much more predictive way to think about each race is as a comparison of CANDIDATE STRENGTH. If people already voted for you, they have already indicated they like you enough to do so again, and each term someone gets elected to makes them stronger. Each large margin they win by makes them stronger. Candidate strength has to do with PRIOR RECOGNITION, and NOTHING to do with popularity, wealth, charisma, or military or business cred. A popular governor is a stronger challenger than another statewide official like an AG, who is a stronger challenger than a Congressperson, who is stronger than someone with no elected experience. Conversely, a challenger with a prior loss or gap in service is a weaker one.
3. Races with INCUMBENTS do NOT perform the same as OPEN races, and there are many notable instances of long-term incumbents greatly overperforming polling. An open race in a Presidential year almost always matches the top of the ticket, but a race with a long-time incumbent will still usually default to the incumbent regardless of the Presidential margin (even a large one), unless a strong enough challenger is presented. There is also evidence that a strong Senate candidate can bolster a Presidential candidate, rather than just the other way around.
4. PARTY UNITY and organization is also absolutely key. A competitive primary hurt the nominee's chances, as does a notable third-party candidate share. A margin of victory for a governor can matter just as much as a Presidential margin.
5. The "WAVES" that usually happen in MIDTERMS against the President's party are another very overrated canard. They only really impact the field if the generic loss is quite large AND the effect only serves to bring incumbents of the party in power down a notch, rather than bolstering open seats or opposition-party incumbents.
6. SCANDAL can seriously tank your chances, but the level it has to rise to is very selective. There must be actual investigations, indictments, or lawsuits. Outrageous comments or behavior do not make the cut unless there is bipartisan condemnation and continuous attention. If a candidate wins over a scandal-ridden opponent, they might be weaker than the typical incumbent next time.
7. As an aside, SMALL STATES often do not work under the same dynamics as larger states. States like Alaska, Montana, New Hampshire, or Maine are the size of 1-2 Congressional districts apiece. PERSONAL CONNECTION with Senators from those states is far more possible than in large states, and someone who maintains it can defy way, way, way more gravity if the Presidential vote is against them compared to someone running in California or Texas or Illinois.
8. The above factors stay constantly predictive REGARDLESS OF any changes in political MOOD of the country. To anyone saying, "well, everything has changed in the post-2016 era and people are more partisan and just don't vote like they used to"... the factors I have listed have actually gotten MORE predictive post 2016. ***The current version of this model has has called every - yes, I said EVERY, as in 100% - of the Senate races from 2014 onward, all 233 of them.***
AS YOU CAN SEE, these considerations do not involve polling, approval ratings, funding for ads, fame/personality, or ratings from other "crystal ball" experts. These things have no predictive value at all, at least not in comparison to these fundamentals. When those more traditionally publicized measurements conflicted with the model I am working on, the model has been correct in calling the "surprise" almost every time.
Please ask any questions! I can’t share what the model says for this year’s races or the exact numbers (again, proprietary knowledge, yet to be copyrighted), but anything else, bring it on!
I can't do that before the election, unfortunately. I mean, I do know what the model says, but I'm already sticking my neck out by sharing all of these takeaways.
I will say one thing in a nudge-nudge sort of way: both of our red-state incumbents are three-term incumbents running against novices with no elected experience. There are only two instances of that resulting in a win for the novice since 1976 (as far as I have gone back) and both of those were in special elections where the incumbent's party got wiped out, rather than a close Presidential. So a loss for Tester or Brown would represent something that has occurred exactly zero times in the last half a century. Strange things happen, but that would be a situation that has so far had a 0% success rate since before the Post-It note was invented.
In fact, it is startling that 6/8 of the competitive Repub nominees have no experience at all, Rodgers in MI hasn't held office in a decade, and both AZ and OH had unorganized, divisive primaries. None of those situations usually get a good result, and represent a doubling down on choices that dearly cost them last cycle. Their candidates are stronger than ours in TX, FL, and MD, yet for Hogan to beat Alsobrooks he would have to climb over a Presidential wall 2 times higher than Tester and 3 times higher than Brown. His majorities he won his governorship by were both narrow amd he showed no real growth.
All this is to say that I can't say what the model says, but I am higher on our chances than polling might show and agree with the DSCC that when faced with a very unfrieldly map, circling the wagons and going for broke in MT&OH was - and is - way smarter than trying for FL&TX.
He is looking good based on polling that has been released. That doesn't mean he will win. Some of our other candidates are not looking so good in polling. That doesn't mean they will lose.
I really, truly cannot emphasize enough how spectacularly wrong polling can sometimes be. I already knew that, but researching literally hundreds of Senate races over decades confirmed it to another level. What makes the model I have been working on unique (again, not to brag, but it has been 98% correct going back a quarter-century) is that polling and positive/negative media coverage is completely irrelevant.
We actually have a near-perfect comparison point to the Fischer-Osborn race: In 2014 in Kansas, 3-term incumbent Repub Pat Roberts faced off against centrist independent Greg Orman, with no Dem in the race. Orman had never held office but got tons of press. People seemed to love the idea of a true Independent. The prognosticators declared the race a Toss-Up. Orman led in the polls by ~2% going into election day (one poll in early October had him up by 12%). Roberts won by 11%. That is a 13-point polling miss(!!!) toward the incumbent... but it shouldn't be a shocking result. A 3-term incumbent who had won his last race by double-digits clearly should have enough support to withstand a challenge from someone who has never gotten a single vote statewide in their life, and in fact that is what happened in the end.
Hey. you might be interested in this piece by Michael Podhorzer, who's considered kind of a guru on these matters (he was previously political director of the AFL-CIO).
Thanks. I appreciate it. Honestly, I am kind of surprised more people didn't "like" it, not that I need the validation. I thought my fellow Hopium addicts would be the folks that would really appreciate the analysis and I would be fielding questions all day but it seems to have garnered less attention than my silly/funny comments.
Jon Ralston, Editor of the Nevada Independent, is always my go-to source for good info on Nevada elections. Ralston’s eminent Early Voting Blog is now up, with his first entry yesterday. Fascinating early musings, although I am a bit surprised that he expects so few votes from Independents. Anyway, I highly recommend following Jon Ralston for objective analysis in what he calls the "WeMatterState" – Nevada!
I have to say that Culinary Union post on the nitter link scared me! I hope Ralston's right and it's just an organizing tactic ! I seriously hope Harris can hang on to Nevada !!!
I roll my eyes every time I hear "If the election were held today..." Like, it's not being held today. We know when it's being held, and today ain't it. If it was we would have been doing the last few weeks differently.
Literally no one uses this line of thinking in any other area of life. We complain about "the horse race," but they don't even pull that nonsense at actual horseraces. "If the race ended right now, Secretariat would win! Half a mile to go!"
"Well, it's the 2nd inning and the White Sox are up by one. If the game ended now they would be the champs! Can they be overcome?"
"We've had the chicken in the oven for 5 minutes, and if we ate it right now, salmonella poisoning is the most likely outcome. Is this chicken ever going to be edible?"
"Little Susie is learning her multiplication tables? Don't get too proud of her. It is clear if she went to college today she would most likely flunk out the first semester."
I saw Ralston’s post on X and was wondering the same thing about why he was assuming so few Harris supporters among newly registered 2024 no party voters. He said that Trump only needs a small % of them. Made me wonder what I am missing. He also didn’t reference age ranges of the newly registered no party voters. 🤷🏻♀️
Bottom line, hard to imagine Jacky Rosen winning by 7-10 points but Trump winning the state….our turnout machine there will definitely count for something, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a little closer than recent cycles due to the right leaning trend among male Latinos we’re seeing….but I still have faith in the final statewide tally for Harris
It's pretty simple: if the state of Example has 40% registered for Party X, 30% for party Y, and 30% unaffiliated, then party Y needs more of the unaffiliated to win.
As you point out, though, lots of people might not want to be part of a party but still always vote for those parties' candidates. It could be that significantly more of unaffiliated almost always vote for Party Y anyway, so their apparent disadvantage is not actually much of a disadvantage at all.
Precisely that is the situation for Democrats in Florida, according to Christopher Bouzy. He thinks Deb Mucarsel-Powell will beat Rick Scott and that Kamala Harris will flip Florida.
No shade, but can someone explain to me why people are listening to CBouzy? I'm genuinely curious. Seems like a nice guy, and he can get the big picture right, but no political experience at all. I'm thinking back to his calls last cycle and it seemed like every time he claimed "my analysis shows the remaining votes will come from here and go there" he was always way off.
Aren't they talking about Rosen winning Nevada? I didn't hear them say they expect Harris to win Nevada, although I certainly hope that to be the case!
Yup, I have been preaching to my little choir of Dem leaning voters for two weeks that we have had 3 consecutive months of good news for us and bad news for them, and that the most powerful tool that MAGA has is a massive and centralized propaganda machine….so expect them to get aggressive with it to try to shift the vibe in the closing weeks and DON’T FALL FOR IT! The last hope they have is to try to make us feel like shit, and I say to hell with that. We have one of the best incumbent presidents in American History doing an amazing job, and one of the objectively greatest candidates world history has ever seen running a flawless campaign under incredibly challenging conditions, and I’m not gonna let a lying malevolent disgrace of a human being, or a corrupt gang of spoiled sycophantic brats get in the way of enjoying her brilliance and dynamism. Let’s reject these psychological traps together and close strong as happy and confident warriors together my friends….what lies on the other side is so worth the journey and work. Love you all, go team USA 🇺🇸!!
I just moved all around on different channels and sites to avoid all the garbage flying our way today. Simon asked us to reduce our exposure to what was to come. He was so right and you are right too: we need to stay as calm as possible and close them out!!
Hi there hopium community, anxious but cautiously optimistic reader from germany here who is really invested in your election. First of all big shoutout to you guys und Simon for keeping me sane and informed from afar.
Now, i have one question that i‘m not able to answer myself because i couldn’t find good data and because i don’t live in the US. In last night’s YT video Simon said that the GOP is trying to push all the polling averages towards DT by flooding the zone with red wave pollsters. Will this have a real effect on voter turnout/enthusiasm (numb the democrats, activate republicans, or the other way around) or is this „just noise“ that has no real impact on the election whatsoever and they just use this tactic to prepare their „stolen election bid“ once again? Or in other words: Do voters actually care about polling averages and sites like RCP or Polymarket?
Because from what i gathered, voter turnout among democrats was the biggest when the polls suggested a close race (2012 presidential election, 2022 midterms). I am really curious what you guys have to say because all of you know so much more about American politics than me.
Hi from the UK Arne, It's a good point. If it's looking really close (which it is) that might activate the Democrats to get to the polls to stop the horrible creature from winning - whatever other misgivings some individuals may have. Very best wishes.
The advantage it offers is it keeps the election from getting too obviously away from them. It keeps their donors sending money, it keeps the talking heads treating him more seriously, it keeps the engaged supporters bringing it up constantly because they feel they are winning.
All these things keep their base from getting demoralized and skipping the election. It also probably keeps Dems from getting too bold and really targeting those R+4 or R+5 house districts which would be gettable if their base starts to tune out.
Thanks guys for your quick response. What is your feeling as people living in the US, is their actual Enthusiasm in the GOP besides the MAGA base? Or is the Kamala/Walz enthusiasm still way way higher? I read that a significant number of more moderate republicans are siding with the Dems this election year. Is this correct?
It’s hard to answer because we’re such a large country and we differ a lot based on which part of the country we’re in. I’m in Oregon, a reliably Dem state along the west coast between two other Dem states, and I’d say in my part of the state, I’m seeing a lot more Harris/Walz lawn signs than Biden/Harris signs in 2020. I’m also seeing fewer Trump signs- we used to have two idiots who would drive their big trucks absolutely festooned with Trump flags around town, haven’t seen them in a year.
So from that, I’d say enthusiasm is up. And we have two competitive Congressional House races in my area so I certainly hope the enthusiasm is there.
But a blue/purple city in a blue state isn’t really a good gauge for the whole country.
Great presentation from Simon last night. I’m trying to limit my time on Threads due to rise in negativity. I found this to be the case on Twitter as well back in 2020. Democrats are prone to worry. I plan to attend post carding events tonight and next week. Will there be Thursday meetings after next week, maybe for phone banking only? I’m finding this strategy of keeping myself busy is very effective!
Hi Cynthia, Understand avoiding negativity. As Simon sets out quite superbly, there are so many things to be positive about. Thank you for your efforts and busyness.
In 2022, I couldn’t take the doom and gloom so basically followed only Simon, Tom Bonier, Michael McDonald, Jon Ralston, and Dave Wasserman. I just couldn’t take all the panicked group dooming.
Last night I had 65 folks over at my house for phonebanking and postcarding. Together we handwrote 798 letters and postcards to voters in NC, NV, and PA. We also made hundreds of phonebank calls to AZ voters. That’s awesome on its own merits, but an exciting side-note is that our phonebank calls were among more than 1 million phonebank dials made yesterday on the DNC’s national dialer on behalf of the Harris/Walz campaign (the last reported dial count before closing was 1,051,000). Never before had the DNC logged a million-plus calls in a single day for the Harris campaign… until yesterday. That’s kinda cool!
Beyond amazing Patrick. I hear your kind of activity and good work described and am so grateful there are people like you and your “folks” doing such great work. A heartfelt thanks to all 🙏🏻 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
I hope after the election the House/Senate/DOJ investigates this Elon paying people to vote play. Elon never pays for anything himself we should probably assume this is Russian or Saudi money paying for this already legally dubious venture.
Probably also a tell that he thinks (or at least says) he will go to jail if Trump loses.
Can someone please explain to me why people complain about receiving so many alarm-filled text messages and emails? Why are people still getting these things? It's the simplest thing in the world to fix. If it is a text, you delete the message and say BLOCK NUMBER and report spam. I get literally zero texts of this kind because they all go to my spam folder. If it is an email, scroll down and click UNSUBSCRIBE ALL. They are required by law to have this. Unsubscribe every time and they will very soon stop. Again, I get no emails of this sort. None. Zip.
Please. Someone explain to me why this appears harder for other people than me. I'm not trying to be patronizing, I swear. I'm just mindboggled.
"It's Gavin Newsom! Are you still a Democrat? We have a 400% MATCH in the next hour!" STOP2QUIT
"If we get just $4000 in the next hour we will CRUSH Tr*mp!" STOP2QUIT
"Did you see the new polls? We're BEGGING you to read this." STOP2QUIT
"Hey, It's Dad! Did you remember to see if the package arrived. If you could bring them inside before they get too hot that would be great xoxo" STOP2QUIT Oh no wait...
Better yet, never give campaigns your cell phone number in the first place. Same goes for email address. Unless, of course, you prefer to be available to their frequent, automated outreach.
This is my point though: there is no way in the good year of 2024 to be effective at this work without giving out your phone number and email. But the issue is moot if you just UNSUBSCRIBE as soon as the first few texts or emails come in. I don't ever see the automated outreach because I have either opted out or it goes to spam. It is in fact possible to give out your info and also avoid getting bombarded, in fact it is as simple as a few clicks, so.. I'm just so confused as to how people are having trouble.
To be fair, I gave up unsubscribing and blocking bc I would and still get lots of texts. I just delete - much faster for me.
Great presentation last night Simon! Looking forward to hearing Obama today in PA. “Fired Up! Ready to go!” CHARGE!!!!!!!
As we know, western North Carolina was hit hard by Hurricane Helene, with many communities devastated. Yesterday, State Representative Caleb Rudow (D) from Buncombe County, proposed a bill to allow hurricane victims a 5-day extension to register to vote and a 3-day grace period for mail-in ballots.
Every single Republican in North Carolina’s House voted NO.
Except for Asheville, I understand that much of the hurricane-stricken region in the western part of the state is heavily Republican. I wouldn’t be surprised if people vent their anger at the Republican House representatives that are on the ballot this November. I wonder whether this will come back to bite them in the election – and not just in the presidential?
There’s a rather fascinating analysis of the possible election impact here.
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Items/Oct07-4.html
Granted, the damage and aftereffects of the hurricane are hardly uniform, so a regional analysis of county trends might not to be granular enough to give a clear answer. But certainly Hurricane Helen, and Republican political response – or rather, lack of such – is sure to have a major impact.
When Helene decimated NC, I did a quick tally of 2020 voters in the affected counties, and they’re heavily Republican. Asheville is a blue dot in a very red area.
The GOP needs Western NC to vote, so this seems like cutting off their own noses to spite their faces.
They are who they are. (Durham voter)
True. When NC drew district lines after the last census in 2020, they again drew a line between Asheville and some neighboring towns all of which are red.
I went to a local Dem event in person this evening. One of guest speakers was the guy in charge of day-to-day operations for Mecklenburg Co. Board of Elections. Super nice guy who genuinely wants to make it as easy as possible for voters to vote. He made sure that everyone in the audience knew that there is an exemption form that people can fill out if they don't have a voter ID so that they can still vote. Oh, and he is a strong proponent of getting as many people to vote early as possible!
Each of NC's 100 counties has a 5-member board and they are all working very hard to make the election process go as smoothly as possible for any aspects over which THEY have control. This link discusses the changes the NC State BoE adopted this week for the 13 counties most effected by Helene:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/dl.ncsbe.gov/State_Board_Meeting_Docs/2024-10-07/20241007%20Emergency%20Resolution%20for%2013%20WNC%20Counties_Final_Signed.pdf
However as ArcticStones pointed out, the opposite is true for the GOP Supermajority in the state legislature! My soon to be elected state representative was also at the meeting tonight. She thinks that when the GOP inevitably tries to claim that the Democrats did the voters in western NC wrong, that this vote not to give voters more time WILL come back to bite them.
Thanks ArcticStones. Is there a follow up potential, can the vote be e tended in the two ways mentioned anyhow/somehow?
Does anyone know what polling to re-elect Senator Sherrod Brown looks like? Are unions and veterans actively canvassing, phone banking, and working on GOTV there? I’ve been up since 3am as the result of current events anxiety. I’ve already mailed 30 postcards for Will Rollins and Laura Gillen. Many more to do today.
Simon has said several times over the past few weeks that Sherrod Brown is holding on so far. Nobody is taking anything for granted, and we're raising money for him here, but he's in about a good a position as we could hope for. And he's running against a terrible candidate.
Hi Linda, Much of the civilised world is anxious about this election, me included. If it's the Quinnipiac polls that are concerning you, a word of reassurance. The cross tabs show a much higher performance for Trump amongst 18 to 30 year olds than some analysts think credible. Correcting this gives Harris the lead. The antidote is to persuade as many young people as possible to vote - because in actuality they have a much higher likelihood of voting for Harris (contrary to the poll). Very best wishes from an anxious Brit.
If I'm not mistaken Quinnipiac themselves admitted to modeling higher GOP turnout back in August.
Really, I had thought, without any specific evidence to back it up, that they were more left-leaning. That is why I was quite concerned yesterday as well. I hope you are correct about the way they model.
This was originally shared by JCOK yesterday... https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us09242024_urah86.pdf
Thanks a lot! I didn’t expect you to find this and send it to me but I appreciate your effort.
It's weird, though, because they didn't change their modelling to higher Repub turnout based on lower Dem enthusiasm, instead they changed their model to higher Repub turnout... and then found lower Dem enthusiasm. Seems backasswards but I've kinda given up for this year on attempting to parse these people's explainations.
Sherrod Brown is ahead by 2.3 % in the 538 poll average. Jon Tester is 5.4 % behind. There are three Senate candidates with better chances than Tester: Dan Osborn (independent) in Nebraska, Colin Allred in Texas and Debbie Mucarsel-Powell in Florida. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/senate/2024/ohio/general/
I'd just like to provide the periodic reminder to fellow Hopium denizens of some things Simon has pointed out in the past:
1) That many poll averages in recent Senate races have been spectacularly wrong. Susan Collins was behind by 6% in '20 and went on to win by 9%, an overperformance of 15%. (Yes, read that again. Not a typo.) In '22, Maggie Hassan overperformed by 8%, and Mark Kelly and John Fetterman overperformed by 5%. The list goes on.
2) Some polls are respectable, and some are garbage. All of them get included in the averages. The fewer unbiased polls there are, the more likely to be off the averages are. Montana has had only one high-quality nonpartisan poll in MONTHS, same with Nebraska, Maryland too few as well. Those averages are beyond suspect. You can't draw a good line with only one or two dots. Ohio, Texas, and Florida have enough for us to BEGIN to draw a conclusion, while Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, and Nevada have a wealth of data.
3) The size and shape of the state makes each race totally different. States like New Hampshire or Vermont or the Dakotas or Montana are the size of one or two Congressional districts, so they don't behave the same as bigger media markets like Georgia or Florida or Pennsylvania.
4) Strong incumbents can often "close the deal" and swing more people who voted for them before back to them at the end, so their polls are WAY more likely to diverge from their last total than someone unknown who doesn't have that name recognition.
Linda if you are worried about OH and Sen. Brown's race, Postcards to Voters (www.postcardstovoters.org) is writing postcards for him and Activate America (www.activateamerica.vote) is writing GOTV postcards to key congressional districts in OH. And I'm sure there are lots of phonebanks - although none of them at 3 am.
From Michael McDonald’s newsletter regarding the early vote in PA and NV:
“We still have nearly a month of early voting. Dynamics will change as more mail ballots are cast and in-person early voting starts in earnest. My best read is that these data are what we would expect to see if Harris is competitive in states like Nevada and Pennsylvania. These early voting data as of now appear to confirm polling averages for these states that show a tight election and give us greater confidence the poll averages are providing an accurate read of the election in these states.
If I were to offer an additional poll insight it is that a big polling miss due to systematic polling bias does not appear to be in the cards at the moment, at least in Trump’s favor. If Democrats lag in the early vote, I’m more likely to believe a polling miss in Trump’s favor.”
Basically, his very very early analysis of the vote is that Harris is building the blue wall in the early vote so far and that points to a close, competitive election that isn’t favoring Trump right now. Still too early to know much of anything, but the data certainly isn’t showing a Trump overperformance of the polls.
Onward friends, we have an election to win!
The Early Vote has now passed 3 million! Lots of good info on Michael McDonald’s Election Project website. Click on the state name you want, and you can see party and gender breakdown of the early vote, as well as breakdown by age and ethnicity for the states that report this data:
https://election.lab.ufl.edu/early-vote/2024-early-voting/
Edit: I recommend looking at McDonald in conjunction with Tom Bonier’s TargetSmart analysis of the Early Vote. A key difference is that Tom uses "Modeled Party", which is based on a lot of additional data. Again, lots of detail. On his TargetEarly dashboard, you can select by state and the type of data you want to examine. For example Pennsylvania...
https://targetearly.targetsmart.com/g2024
https://targetearly.targetsmart.com/g2024?count_prefix=current_eav_voted_count_&demo_filters=%5B%7B%22key%22%3A%22modeledParty%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22All%22%7D%5D&state=PA&view_type=state
Thank you ArcticStones, This is great.
UPDATE: That was quick. We’ve now passed 3.3 million Early Votes.
I am so busy -- we all are. But I did hop on last night's Hopium presentation and am so glad I did. I needed an antidote to Twitter/X and all of the doomsday tweets, many by fellow Democrats. After I left the Hopium Zoom, I went to our Markers For Democracy Postcarding Bootcamp where we had over 150 new postcard writers! Hopefully some of them will join us at tonight's Hopium Winning The House Zoom where we will write postcards and phonebank for the awesome Sue Altman, one of my favorite candidates this cycle.
Hopefully you shared Hopium links to those spooked democrats!
Many of those "fellow Democrats" may be part of the rethug disinformation machine.
Would not surprise me in the least
Hi Ellen,
Do you know if MFD has decided school board races they’re supporting? 🤞 they support our excellent candidate running against our Moms For Liberty endorsed incumbent.I did submit info when I saw request on the Grassroots email.
Ellen, I have several family members who fit into your description of "my fellow Democrats". They always vote. They always support Democrats. They always live in anxiety and panic. I personally believe it's because they live in Red Areas that are information-free bubbles of doom. I have learned to only offer consolation if they ask for it. When they ask, I go over all the data that says we're doing better than we think. Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 and 2020. Trump lost the House in 2018 and 2020. Trump's hand-picked MAGA candidates lost the Senate in 2020 and 2022. He's now weaker, more constricted and more addle-brained than ever. As our VP says all the time, he's a loser.
Also, I have family members who live in Blue States. They are noticeably less pessimistic than the rest of the family. I feel my part is to be an information warrior.
The Trump slight 'blip' in polling performance (if more than the vagaries of polling) coincides with the disgustingly dishonest claims about FEMA and funding being stolen for migrants. This has since been robustly fact checked and hopefully some of those who may have been initially seduced by these lies will now consider their selection in the round and decide on Harris. US fundamentals are really strong. A Harris presidency really could get off to a flying start. I'm keeping fingers (and everything else) crossed. Thank you all for your heroic efforts!
Trump’s slight "blip" in polling performance also coincides with a flood of disgustingly dishonest polls. Just saying.
This is a great presentation! I agree with Simon that we have to do more since there is not another debate. Matthew Dowd equated one debate to 20 days campaigning on Deadline WH several weeks ago.
We have to keep pushing, even if we have already done a lot. Again, here in NC where I am volunteering, we are pushing hard each of the next four weekends to mobilize voters. I am in Charlotte, because Mecklenburg County is a key county for the campaign. Please consider coming here on one of these weekends if you are able. I am happy to help in any way that I can. Here is the website to sign up. Please consider! You can join me in being part of the team that wins NC!
https://www.mobilize.us/ncdems/
Tim, You are fantastic, thank you.
Thank you Simon. I watched the discussion live yesterday and am listening again today. I've received several texts and email from groups trying fundraise off this supposed "surge" in Trump support and it pisses me off. It's lazy and irresponsible. Thankfully I have Hopium to keep me grounded and cut through the bullshit. Mailed 5 more letters to NC today!
SOMETHING SPECIAL for fellow Hopium denizens: I have been working on developing a predictive model for Senate races! I cannot divulge the details, because obviously it is proprietary knowledge and there has not yet been any binding agreement as to whether/how it shall begin to be published publicly. Yet I have the OK to share some of my research, which is of course based off of publicly available data. The research goes back for the last half-century, and so far the model has been tested on the last 400 Senate races. The current version has a 98.3% accuracy rate over those last 400 races, and the accuracy increases as we get closer to the present day. Yes, you read that right. Very exciting, and since I keep finding myself smacking down people in internet comments over the Senate races, I'd better bring some receipts and explanations, for anyone who is interested.
Here is what I have discovered in my research (that I am able to share):
1. The margin of victory for the Presidential candidate is massively overrated as a predictor, and the margins ARE NOT LINEAR. So if President X wins one state by 2%, another by 5%, and a third by 15%, that does NOT mean that is the order in which those states are competitive for Senate races. This is the BIGGEST MISTAKE people are making, BY FAR. It is one component regarding which candidate is favored, but only one. My research shows it takes up until the margin is something like 20% for a race to start getting truly out of reach. Senate races are viewed as state affairs by many voters, similar to governor's races, and they will vote party loyalty for President but are more likely to give a vote to an opposition candidate with a unique "brand."
2. The much more predictive way to think about each race is as a comparison of CANDIDATE STRENGTH. If people already voted for you, they have already indicated they like you enough to do so again, and each term someone gets elected to makes them stronger. Each large margin they win by makes them stronger. Candidate strength has to do with PRIOR RECOGNITION, and NOTHING to do with popularity, wealth, charisma, or military or business cred. A popular governor is a stronger challenger than another statewide official like an AG, who is a stronger challenger than a Congressperson, who is stronger than someone with no elected experience. Conversely, a challenger with a prior loss or gap in service is a weaker one.
3. Races with INCUMBENTS do NOT perform the same as OPEN races, and there are many notable instances of long-term incumbents greatly overperforming polling. An open race in a Presidential year almost always matches the top of the ticket, but a race with a long-time incumbent will still usually default to the incumbent regardless of the Presidential margin (even a large one), unless a strong enough challenger is presented. There is also evidence that a strong Senate candidate can bolster a Presidential candidate, rather than just the other way around.
4. PARTY UNITY and organization is also absolutely key. A competitive primary hurt the nominee's chances, as does a notable third-party candidate share. A margin of victory for a governor can matter just as much as a Presidential margin.
5. The "WAVES" that usually happen in MIDTERMS against the President's party are another very overrated canard. They only really impact the field if the generic loss is quite large AND the effect only serves to bring incumbents of the party in power down a notch, rather than bolstering open seats or opposition-party incumbents.
6. SCANDAL can seriously tank your chances, but the level it has to rise to is very selective. There must be actual investigations, indictments, or lawsuits. Outrageous comments or behavior do not make the cut unless there is bipartisan condemnation and continuous attention. If a candidate wins over a scandal-ridden opponent, they might be weaker than the typical incumbent next time.
7. As an aside, SMALL STATES often do not work under the same dynamics as larger states. States like Alaska, Montana, New Hampshire, or Maine are the size of 1-2 Congressional districts apiece. PERSONAL CONNECTION with Senators from those states is far more possible than in large states, and someone who maintains it can defy way, way, way more gravity if the Presidential vote is against them compared to someone running in California or Texas or Illinois.
8. The above factors stay constantly predictive REGARDLESS OF any changes in political MOOD of the country. To anyone saying, "well, everything has changed in the post-2016 era and people are more partisan and just don't vote like they used to"... the factors I have listed have actually gotten MORE predictive post 2016. ***The current version of this model has has called every - yes, I said EVERY, as in 100% - of the Senate races from 2014 onward, all 233 of them.***
AS YOU CAN SEE, these considerations do not involve polling, approval ratings, funding for ads, fame/personality, or ratings from other "crystal ball" experts. These things have no predictive value at all, at least not in comparison to these fundamentals. When those more traditionally publicized measurements conflicted with the model I am working on, the model has been correct in calling the "surprise" almost every time.
Please ask any questions! I can’t share what the model says for this year’s races or the exact numbers (again, proprietary knowledge, yet to be copyrighted), but anything else, bring it on!
Any idea when you will be able to share the model’s Senate forecast?
I can't do that before the election, unfortunately. I mean, I do know what the model says, but I'm already sticking my neck out by sharing all of these takeaways.
I will say one thing in a nudge-nudge sort of way: both of our red-state incumbents are three-term incumbents running against novices with no elected experience. There are only two instances of that resulting in a win for the novice since 1976 (as far as I have gone back) and both of those were in special elections where the incumbent's party got wiped out, rather than a close Presidential. So a loss for Tester or Brown would represent something that has occurred exactly zero times in the last half a century. Strange things happen, but that would be a situation that has so far had a 0% success rate since before the Post-It note was invented.
In fact, it is startling that 6/8 of the competitive Repub nominees have no experience at all, Rodgers in MI hasn't held office in a decade, and both AZ and OH had unorganized, divisive primaries. None of those situations usually get a good result, and represent a doubling down on choices that dearly cost them last cycle. Their candidates are stronger than ours in TX, FL, and MD, yet for Hogan to beat Alsobrooks he would have to climb over a Presidential wall 2 times higher than Tester and 3 times higher than Brown. His majorities he won his governorship by were both narrow amd he showed no real growth.
All this is to say that I can't say what the model says, but I am higher on our chances than polling might show and agree with the DSCC that when faced with a very unfrieldly map, circling the wagons and going for broke in MT&OH was - and is - way smarter than trying for FL&TX.
Osborn in Nebraska is looking very good.
He is looking good based on polling that has been released. That doesn't mean he will win. Some of our other candidates are not looking so good in polling. That doesn't mean they will lose.
I really, truly cannot emphasize enough how spectacularly wrong polling can sometimes be. I already knew that, but researching literally hundreds of Senate races over decades confirmed it to another level. What makes the model I have been working on unique (again, not to brag, but it has been 98% correct going back a quarter-century) is that polling and positive/negative media coverage is completely irrelevant.
We actually have a near-perfect comparison point to the Fischer-Osborn race: In 2014 in Kansas, 3-term incumbent Repub Pat Roberts faced off against centrist independent Greg Orman, with no Dem in the race. Orman had never held office but got tons of press. People seemed to love the idea of a true Independent. The prognosticators declared the race a Toss-Up. Orman led in the polls by ~2% going into election day (one poll in early October had him up by 12%). Roberts won by 11%. That is a 13-point polling miss(!!!) toward the incumbent... but it shouldn't be a shocking result. A 3-term incumbent who had won his last race by double-digits clearly should have enough support to withstand a challenge from someone who has never gotten a single vote statewide in their life, and in fact that is what happened in the end.
Miracles do happen, but polls are not prophecies.
Hey. you might be interested in this piece by Michael Podhorzer, who's considered kind of a guru on these matters (he was previously political director of the AFL-CIO).
'Kamala Harris Will Win the Popular Vote'
'Here’s how we know.'
https://www.weekendreading.net/p/kamala-harris-will-win-the-popular
This is really great. Thank you.
Thanks. I appreciate it. Honestly, I am kind of surprised more people didn't "like" it, not that I need the validation. I thought my fellow Hopium addicts would be the folks that would really appreciate the analysis and I would be fielding questions all day but it seems to have garnered less attention than my silly/funny comments.
NEVADA
Jon Ralston, Editor of the Nevada Independent, is always my go-to source for good info on Nevada elections. Ralston’s eminent Early Voting Blog is now up, with his first entry yesterday. Fascinating early musings, although I am a bit surprised that he expects so few votes from Independents. Anyway, I highly recommend following Jon Ralston for objective analysis in what he calls the "WeMatterState" – Nevada!
https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/the-early-voting-blog-2024
https://nitter.poast.org/RalstonReports
I have to say that Culinary Union post on the nitter link scared me! I hope Ralston's right and it's just an organizing tactic ! I seriously hope Harris can hang on to Nevada !!!
Just posted. Lots of hand-wringing guys. It's unhealthy. Jon Ralston and James Carville on why Trump won't win Nevada.:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCaOgN0JzH8
You mean my handwringing here ?
I roll my eyes every time I hear "If the election were held today..." Like, it's not being held today. We know when it's being held, and today ain't it. If it was we would have been doing the last few weeks differently.
Literally no one uses this line of thinking in any other area of life. We complain about "the horse race," but they don't even pull that nonsense at actual horseraces. "If the race ended right now, Secretariat would win! Half a mile to go!"
"Well, it's the 2nd inning and the White Sox are up by one. If the game ended now they would be the champs! Can they be overcome?"
"We've had the chicken in the oven for 5 minutes, and if we ate it right now, salmonella poisoning is the most likely outcome. Is this chicken ever going to be edible?"
"Little Susie is learning her multiplication tables? Don't get too proud of her. It is clear if she went to college today she would most likely flunk out the first semester."
It's just so dumb on its face.
I saw Ralston’s post on X and was wondering the same thing about why he was assuming so few Harris supporters among newly registered 2024 no party voters. He said that Trump only needs a small % of them. Made me wonder what I am missing. He also didn’t reference age ranges of the newly registered no party voters. 🤷🏻♀️
Bottom line, hard to imagine Jacky Rosen winning by 7-10 points but Trump winning the state….our turnout machine there will definitely count for something, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a little closer than recent cycles due to the right leaning trend among male Latinos we’re seeing….but I still have faith in the final statewide tally for Harris
It's pretty simple: if the state of Example has 40% registered for Party X, 30% for party Y, and 30% unaffiliated, then party Y needs more of the unaffiliated to win.
As you point out, though, lots of people might not want to be part of a party but still always vote for those parties' candidates. It could be that significantly more of unaffiliated almost always vote for Party Y anyway, so their apparent disadvantage is not actually much of a disadvantage at all.
Precisely that is the situation for Democrats in Florida, according to Christopher Bouzy. He thinks Deb Mucarsel-Powell will beat Rick Scott and that Kamala Harris will flip Florida.
No shade, but can someone explain to me why people are listening to CBouzy? I'm genuinely curious. Seems like a nice guy, and he can get the big picture right, but no political experience at all. I'm thinking back to his calls last cycle and it seemed like every time he claimed "my analysis shows the remaining votes will come from here and go there" he was always way off.
Just posted. Lots of hand-wringing guys. It's unhealthy. Jon Ralston and James Carville on why Trump won't win Nevada.:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCaOgN0JzH8
Thanks! Really encouraging. Ralston was excellent, although I increasingly find Carville annoying and his points tangential.
Agree. Carville needs a muzzle. IMHO.
Aren't they talking about Rosen winning Nevada? I didn't hear them say they expect Harris to win Nevada, although I certainly hope that to be the case!
Whoops, just saw the title is that "Trump will lose Nevada."
Yup, I have been preaching to my little choir of Dem leaning voters for two weeks that we have had 3 consecutive months of good news for us and bad news for them, and that the most powerful tool that MAGA has is a massive and centralized propaganda machine….so expect them to get aggressive with it to try to shift the vibe in the closing weeks and DON’T FALL FOR IT! The last hope they have is to try to make us feel like shit, and I say to hell with that. We have one of the best incumbent presidents in American History doing an amazing job, and one of the objectively greatest candidates world history has ever seen running a flawless campaign under incredibly challenging conditions, and I’m not gonna let a lying malevolent disgrace of a human being, or a corrupt gang of spoiled sycophantic brats get in the way of enjoying her brilliance and dynamism. Let’s reject these psychological traps together and close strong as happy and confident warriors together my friends….what lies on the other side is so worth the journey and work. Love you all, go team USA 🇺🇸!!
Well said sir!
Always tip the musicians!
Haha….I’ll send you my Venmo account! 😂😂🎹🎤💲
🥇🎉🏆🎶🎹
Thanks PMS,
I just moved all around on different channels and sites to avoid all the garbage flying our way today. Simon asked us to reduce our exposure to what was to come. He was so right and you are right too: we need to stay as calm as possible and close them out!!
Hi there hopium community, anxious but cautiously optimistic reader from germany here who is really invested in your election. First of all big shoutout to you guys und Simon for keeping me sane and informed from afar.
Now, i have one question that i‘m not able to answer myself because i couldn’t find good data and because i don’t live in the US. In last night’s YT video Simon said that the GOP is trying to push all the polling averages towards DT by flooding the zone with red wave pollsters. Will this have a real effect on voter turnout/enthusiasm (numb the democrats, activate republicans, or the other way around) or is this „just noise“ that has no real impact on the election whatsoever and they just use this tactic to prepare their „stolen election bid“ once again? Or in other words: Do voters actually care about polling averages and sites like RCP or Polymarket?
Because from what i gathered, voter turnout among democrats was the biggest when the polls suggested a close race (2012 presidential election, 2022 midterms). I am really curious what you guys have to say because all of you know so much more about American politics than me.
Hi from the UK Arne, It's a good point. If it's looking really close (which it is) that might activate the Democrats to get to the polls to stop the horrible creature from winning - whatever other misgivings some individuals may have. Very best wishes.
The advantage it offers is it keeps the election from getting too obviously away from them. It keeps their donors sending money, it keeps the talking heads treating him more seriously, it keeps the engaged supporters bringing it up constantly because they feel they are winning.
All these things keep their base from getting demoralized and skipping the election. It also probably keeps Dems from getting too bold and really targeting those R+4 or R+5 house districts which would be gettable if their base starts to tune out.
Well, it didn't work in 2022. And I think the candidates, not polls, motivate the voters. Harris-Walz are doing that.
Thanks guys for your quick response. What is your feeling as people living in the US, is their actual Enthusiasm in the GOP besides the MAGA base? Or is the Kamala/Walz enthusiasm still way way higher? I read that a significant number of more moderate republicans are siding with the Dems this election year. Is this correct?
It’s hard to answer because we’re such a large country and we differ a lot based on which part of the country we’re in. I’m in Oregon, a reliably Dem state along the west coast between two other Dem states, and I’d say in my part of the state, I’m seeing a lot more Harris/Walz lawn signs than Biden/Harris signs in 2020. I’m also seeing fewer Trump signs- we used to have two idiots who would drive their big trucks absolutely festooned with Trump flags around town, haven’t seen them in a year.
So from that, I’d say enthusiasm is up. And we have two competitive Congressional House races in my area so I certainly hope the enthusiasm is there.
But a blue/purple city in a blue state isn’t really a good gauge for the whole country.
Great presentation from Simon last night. I’m trying to limit my time on Threads due to rise in negativity. I found this to be the case on Twitter as well back in 2020. Democrats are prone to worry. I plan to attend post carding events tonight and next week. Will there be Thursday meetings after next week, maybe for phone banking only? I’m finding this strategy of keeping myself busy is very effective!
Hi Cynthia, Understand avoiding negativity. As Simon sets out quite superbly, there are so many things to be positive about. Thank you for your efforts and busyness.
In 2022, I couldn’t take the doom and gloom so basically followed only Simon, Tom Bonier, Michael McDonald, Jon Ralston, and Dave Wasserman. I just couldn’t take all the panicked group dooming.
Last night I had 65 folks over at my house for phonebanking and postcarding. Together we handwrote 798 letters and postcards to voters in NC, NV, and PA. We also made hundreds of phonebank calls to AZ voters. That’s awesome on its own merits, but an exciting side-note is that our phonebank calls were among more than 1 million phonebank dials made yesterday on the DNC’s national dialer on behalf of the Harris/Walz campaign (the last reported dial count before closing was 1,051,000). Never before had the DNC logged a million-plus calls in a single day for the Harris campaign… until yesterday. That’s kinda cool!
Let’s keep it up!
Terrific - thank you Patrick.
That is fantastic, Patrick. We're in an information war and you guys are on the front lines. You are a true patriot.
Amazing !!!
Beyond amazing Patrick. I hear your kind of activity and good work described and am so grateful there are people like you and your “folks” doing such great work. A heartfelt thanks to all 🙏🏻 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Thank you every one!
I hope after the election the House/Senate/DOJ investigates this Elon paying people to vote play. Elon never pays for anything himself we should probably assume this is Russian or Saudi money paying for this already legally dubious venture.
Probably also a tell that he thinks (or at least says) he will go to jail if Trump loses.