I enjoyed the talk last night with Tom. Somehow I came across you Simon when you were debunking the "Red Wave" and decided you were the guy I wanted to listen to to cut through all the mainstream media coverage of polling. Happy I found you and then became one of the first Hopium members! Yesterday, I watched the Mondaire Jones interview and really believe we need his voice in Congress again - I'm pleased to be able to contribute financially a little to campaigns this cycle. I'm looking forward to us kicking their asses starting NOW. All the best! Kent
Thank you, Simon and Tom, for last night's presentation! If you were not able to be on the Zoom last night, I would encourage everyone in this group to take the time to watch it. It's full of data and facts and really lays out why we can win this election......if we do the work.
There is going to be a lot of polling noise/trash that comes our way in the next 60 days (yes, I am pointing out Nate Silver amongst others) and what Simon and Tom talk about is real data---concrete data and what it means, particularly as people who have spent their careers in this space. If you can take the time to watch this, you will come away with a good understanding of really where we are right now and what we need to do to win. I came away from last night feeling like I understand the current situation a lot better than if I was just riding the Pollercoaster.
Well, 98 percent rhetorical. I thought there might be a 2-percent chance Nate had offered some sort of explanation, and that I’d just missed it. Must admit I have not been following Nate Silver too closely after that.
To be fair, he doesn't really have to. He only says who has a better chance of winning. So if the candidate he says has a 40% chance of winning wins, he can say that a 40% chance of winning is still a chance of winning and he was not wrong. The media is more at fault than people like Nate (who is still very much at fault) for overusing clickbait language like "flashing warning light" and "ringing the alarm bell." They can report that GOP is "in big trouble" based on a something like the Democratic overperformance in the Washington state primaries a month ago (which has generally been a good indicator of what to expect nationwide on election day) or the big enthusiasm gap among GOP and Democratic voters. But within days (if not hours) they speak as if those data points, which are still just as relevant as when they first reported them, have gone away. They want to change the narrative of Kamala building momentum for one reason: they want people to start paying attention to the political news again. Forget the polls and let's get to work. It's a matter of harnessing the enthusiasm to get our voters to the polls.
Except ... Nate Silver was mocking those who said "The data shows no signs of a Red Wave". And he voiced vile public attacks on Simon. Simon got it far more correct; Nate missed the mark.
I did say he was to blame too! As the elections were being called in 2022, he was posting on 538 that it had not been too bad for Democrats, all in all, as if the worst midterm performance of any out-of-power party was not too far off from massive Republican victory he had been predicting. Whatever happens, according to him, he predicted that very outcome, among all other possible outcomes. So why are we listening to him? Even he doesn't know at this point.
Exacty, which should have told you there was very little chance Silver would walk it back.
Simon was stating his interpretation of the facts on the ground, but Nate Silver probably saw it as an attack on him because it seems to me that he (Silver) was starting to believe his own press.
allan lichtman the history professor who has predicted every presidential election since 1981 has predicted Harris will win this election. Theres only 3 keys against her
Here are some links. First a succinct visual summary of which keys favor whom. Hint: it’s 8–3 in favor of Kamala Harris, with two keys yet to be determined:
That video from NYT is hugely entertaining and clearly laid out, thanks for the link! I could almost forgive them for the Opinion piece from Lindsay G today. Lichtman is an impressive marathoner!
I can't believe he didn't give her the incumbent charisma key. Good God, she's not a generational inspirational talent? Maybe he needs to look at new voter registration--this has been the cleanest example of candidate impact on that I think we've ever seen--and other more objective measures than the notoriously inaccurate "eye test." Just like the pollsters, he's underestimating her, but who cares as long as she wins, and wins BIG?
Did note, though, that the one he got wrong out of the last 10 presidential elections was none other than Trump in 2016. Not that I think Trump will surprise us all again this year as I firmly believe that the female vote will overwhelm him.
I am excited about the debate next week. There is one important thing I hope the VP will consider: She can't let Trump's lies go unchecked. While fact-checking articles will highlight his falsehoods afterward, many Americans may not see them. It’s crucial that her debate strategy includes live fact-checking during each rebuttal before moving on to her own points.
She should consider counting the falsehoods as she goes, saying something like, "I counted three lies in that answer." At the end of the debate, she could even tally the total and humorously mention that she’s waiting to see if fact-checkers prove her wrong. Let’s prosecute the case against Trump live, in the court of public opinion.
Hopefully, the Harris-Walz Campaign will set up a fact-checking site they run Live during the debate. Kamala Harris can refer to this at the outset, adding that time will not allow her to point out Trump’s myriad of lies.
When it’s her turn, Kamala can just simply say: "That’s a lie" or "Donald just spewed more lies" – and then proceed to her own debate points.
This debate can't deteriorate into Kamala having to correct all of Trump's lies. She should ignore him and make her own statements. Let him challenge her statements. Keep repeating her positive messages.
followed by 'same ole, same ole' - wasn't that the punctuation of Harris's reply on CNN - unless too many voters conclude that Trump's same old is true - oh darn, this is so confusing
I respectfully disagree. That’s one of the places Biden mistepped. You can’t keep track of all the lies, counter them, and get your points across in the limited time. That’s the whole point of the gish gallop. It’s way easier to lie than it is to debunk a lie.
She needs to stay focused, laugh at him, and tell us all why she is better for the nation.
Completely agree. She should not get caught up in anything he offers as bait and especially not in his gish gallop of lies. She directs the narrative, not he. Otherwise, she’d repeat Biden’s mistake, which she is too smart to do.
Very interesting counterpoints here, and great suggestion from Arctic Stones. However, Biden's abilities were limited in this aspect. As a prosecutor, I believe she is highly trained to rebut Trump's lies in concise ways and still have time for her own arguments. But let's see. One thing we can all be sure of: the orange guy is in for a rough ride.
I've never been exited about these debates, PTSD from the last one, and I think it's a mistake to underestimate Trump. There are a lot of voters out there who can and are swayed by strong man vibes rather than actual policy. Especially when people can't make a direct correlation between particular policies and their standard of living. Second, Trumps strategy will be to just lie and flood the zone with crap as Banon said so I just hope Kamala Harris and team have a strategy to counter that, cause the debate moderators sure as heck ain't going to do it. They might even try and help him. I'd really have preferred no debate because I don't think there's much to be gained but a lot can be lost.
Trump a strong man when he speaks in public? Brian Tyler Cohen's verbatim readout of Trump's recent comments about his childcare policy demonstrates his utter incoherence and inability to string two connected thoughts together. It was a "word salad" of the highest order (see 1:35 - 3:20 below). A HS senior could have done better. And this from the man who repeatedly extols his intelligence. Even FoxNews' The Five called him out.
Mark, I see a common reasoning with me here. Memorable lines in presidential debates are usually not policy-focused but those that are humorous, or conveyed passion like "Would you shut up man" line of Biden in 2020. This is why I believe hitting Trump hard on his lies would be a good strategy for the VP. I strongly believe it would be memorable for VP to rebut Trump arguments and lies like she was the prosecutor in the court room.
I've been a little uneasy about all the confident predictions that Harris will slay Trump in the debate. The expectations are simply too high. Also, many Trump cultists view his ability to spew verbal diarrhea unchecked as a sign of strength.
I agree completely. Nothing will prevent him from deploying his firehose of falsehoods. I didn't think Biden should have given him a platform for that and don't think Harris should either. She has everything to lose and nothing to gain; same as Biden.
I disagree, most voters are still learning about Kamala Harris. It is essential she debate just to give voters a chance to see her lay out her case. She is very capable and people just have to see it with their own eyes.
I am not concerned about Trump spewing lies. She could probably ignore him entirely and just make her case to the public and it would be a success. Successfully parrying Trump's attacks and calling out his bs is just icing on the cake.
IMO, what maga thinks shouldn't matter. We're going for everyone else. To most sane people, the traitor/rapist/racist/felon/fraudster/fascist/misogyinst is a weak, decrepit, deranged madman who fomented an insurrection...a disgrace to our country. As our VP has said...she knows his type. It's just a matter of what strategy she chooses. And with her brilliant team, including (I've heard) Pete Buttigieg playing the aforementioned felon, she will be extremely prepared. And she's managing expectations by saying we're the underdogs and acting like it. I cannot wait for this debate!!!
I agree with her counting them. I've been thinking she should be visibly adding them as he speaks (assuming there will be a lot of split screen), then beginning her responses with the total--it will allow her to call them out in real real-time for everyone watching (not just those following the fact-check feed) and drive him crazy.
Probably shouldn't do the *visible* counting while he's speaking *every* time, as the audience could get tired of it or annoyed or think it's too cute, smarty, or mean; like tennis, it's better to do something like this periodically and unpredictably if you really want it to be effective and throw him off his game (do it 2-3 times and the audience will assume you could do it every time).
I'd definitely announce the count every time you respond, but mix up when, where, and how you include it, for the same reasons as above. Predicting a lot more than three per answer, though--one group counted more than 600 in the first debate.
Tom, I agree. For me, it will be memorable for the audience. The most effective lines in presidential debates are not policy-focused; it’s often about the delivery style. And yes, calling out the lies will drive him crazy. I heard the VP's goal is to get under his skin, and that would be the right way to do it.
I used the contact page on the Harris campaign website a couple of days ago to suggest that as Trump talks/lies, she should look at him, raise her arm at a right angle, and silently raise her fingers one at a time -- thumb, then forefinger, etc. When he demands to know what she's doing, she should say, "Just countin' the lies. My website will have detailed fact-checking. So you just keep on talkin', and I'll keep on countin'." (Preferred alternative to "keep on talkin'": "keep on Gish gallopin'" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop><https://skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2012/12/04/the-gish-gallop/><https://skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2014/08/24/gish-gallop-and-goal-post-shift/>. He won't know what "Gish gallopin'" means, which will really frustrate him and get even deeper under his thinnest of thin skins. When/if he asks what it means, she could just say, "I thought a stable genius like you would know such a basic fact. I suggest you look it up after we're done here."]
Finger-counting the lies would disrupt Trump and send a memorable visual signal to the audience, perhaps even become a focal point of news coverage. And there doesn't appear to be a debate rule against finger-counting.
As Simon underscores, Democrats had excellent results in the 2022 Midterm Elections and have overperformed in just about every special election since Dobbs. Meanwhile, Trump underperfomed in so many of the Republican primaries.
What is astonishing is that NONE of the pollsters or aggregators seem to have adjusted their models to account for these developments, which really are quite dramatic. Whereas they have accounted for what they perceive as Trump’s overperformance in 2016 and again in 2020.
When we take into consideration the other metrics that Tom Bonier and Simon highlight in their discussion, there is strong reason to be very optimistic about the election – provided we do the work.
I unfortunately missed the talk with Tom. He does such great work.
Tom was one of several very loud and very correct voices in 2022 warning folks about misinformation being spread by GOP narrative pollsters. The GOP uses pollsters to create narratives of momentum and to strategically "offset" more legitimate polling in the averages. This started in 2016 and has only gotten worse. Some of these pollsters are simply ridiculous. Here are just a few of the more obvious ones:
Big Data Poll – Director is Rich Baris, who operates through various social media platforms spreading right-wing misinformation. Check out his twitter feed. Not rated by 538 but included in 538 averages.
Echelon Insights – Founded by GOP operative Kristen Soltis Anderson. This firm consistently shows numbers to the right. Check out final Senate polls in 2002. They had the Senate going GOP 2+ or more. Somehow, they have a very respectable ranking with 538 at 22nd out of 277.
Fabrizio, Lee & Associates - Headed by Tony Fabrizio, Trump’s current pollster. This guy was suspected of sharing polling information with the Russians in 2016. Ranked 141st out of 277 pollsters by 538 and included in averages.
Insider Advantage - Co-Founder and Chairman is longtime GOP political operative Matt Towery. Other co-founder is Robert Cahaly, now heading up Trafalgar Group (see below). Check out IA’s crazy-town 2022 polls. They were absurd. Ranked 86th out of 277 pollsters by 538 and included in averages.
McLaughlin & Associates – Run by conservative GOP activist John McLaughlin. Ranked 277th out of 277 pollsters by 538. Not kidding. Dead last. Yet, still included in averages.
Rasmussen Reports – Needless to say, Scott Rasmussen’s first venture into pure right-wing polling misinformation. Lost 538 rating and removed from 538 averages.
RMG Research – Scott Rasmussen is also the head person here. Always leans heavy right. Ranked 60th out of 277 pollsters by 538 and included in averages.
SoCal Strategies – Closely affiliated with various MAGA online sites, including Red Eagle Politics. Check out twitter feed and you get the picture. Not rated by 538 but included in 538 averages.
Trafalgar Group – Robert Cahaly is the leader here. We all know what they do – weights for hidden Trump voters. This firm got lucky in 2016 and has been very wrong every time since. See 2022 polls for comic relief. Ranked 273rd out of 277 pollsters by 538 and included in averages.
And as I wrote the above, McLaughlin - ranked dead last among pollsters by 538 (see above) - just dropped a set of new national polls showing Trump up by 2 points with LVs.
If you believe that one, I got some oceanfront property to sell you here in Oklahoma.
JCOK, you understand that I was one who discovered the fake red wave polling and brought it to everyone's attention in 2022? This was a bit of a strange note as this has been well documented. But yes there continues to be too much Republican polling in the averages for us to feel comfortable with it all. As I said last night because of all this R polling I think 538's averages are .5 to 1 pt too Republican.
Your last point is reassuring, especially since the average has swung half a point away from Kamala since her high point. But I’m not aware that pollsters have adjusted their models for Democratic consistent overperfomance, and Trump’s primary underperformance, since Dobbs.
The huge spike in Dem enthusiasm we've seen in recent weeks is almost certainly not showing up in their models. Our basic point is that we did much better than folks thought in 2022 given our intensity advantage when the polls were not as good as they are now. We are arguing here that if there is an overperformance either way it far more likely to be with us than Trump given what we've been seeing since Dobbs. My view right now is that we have the opportunity to turn this into the election we all want it to be if we do the work. A good strong win is a possibility, an opportunity not a done deal.
As of yesterday evening, they hadn't included ABC's poll showing her up by six with LV, which is really strange given that (a) whether with Ipsos or the Post, ABC is *way* more highly rated than any of the pollsters JCOK mentioned (b) ABC publicly announced those results days ago (c) ABC *owns* 538. What's up with that?
Thanks for this rundown. Always suspected some of those named here were tainted, but had no idea how to confirm it. Is there an aggregator that compiles the profiles of all these polling outfits in one place (vs. googling each one separately)?
The above is just a sampling. There are a lot more. And they pop up like rabbit turds, many times with the same people involved but under a different name for marketing.
Assuming it's the same firm, Big Data *was* rated in 2021 when 538 was still giving out letter grades. It got an F. ActiVote is another unrated pollster that recently dumped new data into the national mix. In the old days, 538 used to give new pollsters the benefit of the doubt and rate them slightly above average (they all got B/C grades) until proven otherwise. I hope after the 2022 debacle, they aren't doing that anymore...
I had a conflict last night... our local committee. I've been monitoring other stuff, like public economic expectations, public enthusiasm, the Lichtman 13 keys theory.....
I still think FT 6 is under the radar and can generate a blue tsunami. Tempus fugit but millions of unrepresented folk trend Democratic. Simon was the speaker last March when we added 11,000 new Democrats in N. Carolina in one day. https://www.fieldteam6.org/
Great, great Zoom last night. I am watching it again today - I need the encouragement. And of course tonight I'll be postcarding with Hopium. Simon is keeping me sane! VERY disappointed Substack's new Election tab lists Nate Silvers stats!
Great zoom meeting last night. I learned so much and feel much more confident. News from DOJ is also welcome. I do think Garland has been good at on the ground law enforcement, as with prosecuting J6 rioters so suspected he and others agencies would be effective with election security.
I totally agree about Garland. Donald has called for protests and unrest over his court dates, but that did not happen. There has been reporting that trouble-makers chose not to engage because of the prosecutions of more than 1000 of the Jan6 rioters. I realize that people are fed up with the slowness of our judicial system. My personal belief that has come from a ton of reading and research is that there were Trump holdovers that gummed up the works. If I'm right, then this will come out over time. In any case, we're getting a new administration and a new cabinet soon. Lots to look forward to.
A little after-action report: last night I had 80 friends over at my house (here in West L.A.) for phone banking and post carding. We handwrote 217 postcards to voters in CA-13 for Adam Gray, we handwrote 748 VoteForward letters to low-propensity voters in PA and AZ, and we made hundreds of phone calls for Harris/Walz to voters in Nevada. Not bad for a Wednesday night in early Sept! Let's keep it up, all!
Simon, does Tom’s early-vote data also capture mail-in ballots somehow, either requested or returned? If not, is anyone tracking mail-in requests by party? (Not in states where everyone gets one, of course.)
I enjoyed the talk last night with Tom. Somehow I came across you Simon when you were debunking the "Red Wave" and decided you were the guy I wanted to listen to to cut through all the mainstream media coverage of polling. Happy I found you and then became one of the first Hopium members! Yesterday, I watched the Mondaire Jones interview and really believe we need his voice in Congress again - I'm pleased to be able to contribute financially a little to campaigns this cycle. I'm looking forward to us kicking their asses starting NOW. All the best! Kent
Thank you, Simon and Tom, for last night's presentation! If you were not able to be on the Zoom last night, I would encourage everyone in this group to take the time to watch it. It's full of data and facts and really lays out why we can win this election......if we do the work.
There is going to be a lot of polling noise/trash that comes our way in the next 60 days (yes, I am pointing out Nate Silver amongst others) and what Simon and Tom talk about is real data---concrete data and what it means, particularly as people who have spent their careers in this space. If you can take the time to watch this, you will come away with a good understanding of really where we are right now and what we need to do to win. I came away from last night feeling like I understand the current situation a lot better than if I was just riding the Pollercoaster.
Has Nate Silver ever explained or apologized for getting his 2022 Midterm Election predictions so horribly wrong?
Rhetorical question, right?!?
Well, 98 percent rhetorical. I thought there might be a 2-percent chance Nate had offered some sort of explanation, and that I’d just missed it. Must admit I have not been following Nate Silver too closely after that.
Not that I am aware of.
I saw Nate Silver on an interview with Tim Miller. He is a total smartass and what he was saying defied common sense. Not of fan of him at all!
To be fair, he doesn't really have to. He only says who has a better chance of winning. So if the candidate he says has a 40% chance of winning wins, he can say that a 40% chance of winning is still a chance of winning and he was not wrong. The media is more at fault than people like Nate (who is still very much at fault) for overusing clickbait language like "flashing warning light" and "ringing the alarm bell." They can report that GOP is "in big trouble" based on a something like the Democratic overperformance in the Washington state primaries a month ago (which has generally been a good indicator of what to expect nationwide on election day) or the big enthusiasm gap among GOP and Democratic voters. But within days (if not hours) they speak as if those data points, which are still just as relevant as when they first reported them, have gone away. They want to change the narrative of Kamala building momentum for one reason: they want people to start paying attention to the political news again. Forget the polls and let's get to work. It's a matter of harnessing the enthusiasm to get our voters to the polls.
Except ... Nate Silver was mocking those who said "The data shows no signs of a Red Wave". And he voiced vile public attacks on Simon. Simon got it far more correct; Nate missed the mark.
I did say he was to blame too! As the elections were being called in 2022, he was posting on 538 that it had not been too bad for Democrats, all in all, as if the worst midterm performance of any out-of-power party was not too far off from massive Republican victory he had been predicting. Whatever happens, according to him, he predicted that very outcome, among all other possible outcomes. So why are we listening to him? Even he doesn't know at this point.
Exacty, which should have told you there was very little chance Silver would walk it back.
Simon was stating his interpretation of the facts on the ground, but Nate Silver probably saw it as an attack on him because it seems to me that he (Silver) was starting to believe his own press.
I’ve taken to trolling Nate on twitter. I’m sure he doesn’t care, but I enjoy it.
Thank you for your service!
For the sake of objectivity, Nate really needs some Hopium. :)
allan lichtman the history professor who has predicted every presidential election since 1981 has predicted Harris will win this election. Theres only 3 keys against her
Here are some links. First a succinct visual summary of which keys favor whom. Hint: it’s 8–3 in favor of Kamala Harris, with two keys yet to be determined:
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGWtPvn4W8AEJnPe.png
The NYT article with its brief, entertaining videog:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/05/opinion/allan-lichtman-trump-harris-prediction.html?unlocked_article_code=1.IU4.2dPo.iqGvw2GKrM5L&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb
Another article that sums it up:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/9/5/2268022/-Veteran-Historian-Allan-Lichtman-predicts-Kamala-Harris-will-win-the-White-House
That video from NYT is hugely entertaining and clearly laid out, thanks for the link! I could almost forgive them for the Opinion piece from Lindsay G today. Lichtman is an impressive marathoner!
The only election Lichtman missed was Bush-Gore and we know who really won that contest.
Exactly - now THAT was a stolen election !
I can't believe he didn't give her the incumbent charisma key. Good God, she's not a generational inspirational talent? Maybe he needs to look at new voter registration--this has been the cleanest example of candidate impact on that I think we've ever seen--and other more objective measures than the notoriously inaccurate "eye test." Just like the pollsters, he's underestimating her, but who cares as long as she wins, and wins BIG?
I think it’s because she isn’t technically the incumbent, so he’s trying to be fair with the keys.
Did note, though, that the one he got wrong out of the last 10 presidential elections was none other than Trump in 2016. Not that I think Trump will surprise us all again this year as I firmly believe that the female vote will overwhelm him.
Thanks so much for posting this! Was signed up for the zoom then had to work late.
So DOJ can actually pull its thumb outta its butt! Who knew!
I am excited about the debate next week. There is one important thing I hope the VP will consider: She can't let Trump's lies go unchecked. While fact-checking articles will highlight his falsehoods afterward, many Americans may not see them. It’s crucial that her debate strategy includes live fact-checking during each rebuttal before moving on to her own points.
She should consider counting the falsehoods as she goes, saying something like, "I counted three lies in that answer." At the end of the debate, she could even tally the total and humorously mention that she’s waiting to see if fact-checkers prove her wrong. Let’s prosecute the case against Trump live, in the court of public opinion.
Hopefully, the Harris-Walz Campaign will set up a fact-checking site they run Live during the debate. Kamala Harris can refer to this at the outset, adding that time will not allow her to point out Trump’s myriad of lies.
When it’s her turn, Kamala can just simply say: "That’s a lie" or "Donald just spewed more lies" – and then proceed to her own debate points.
This debate can't deteriorate into Kamala having to correct all of Trump's lies. She should ignore him and make her own statements. Let him challenge her statements. Keep repeating her positive messages.
Absolutely, and that’s my point. But she can afford voicing this 3–5 second mantra: "That’s a lie." And the repetition would be damning.
followed by 'same ole, same ole' - wasn't that the punctuation of Harris's reply on CNN - unless too many voters conclude that Trump's same old is true - oh darn, this is so confusing
Or borrow a line from Ronald Reagan:
"There you go again."
Well, ArcticS, i should have read this first but i was reading in chrono order! Obviously, i agree!
And she could get a laugh, when said just right!
I’ve always said this too. There’s no time to fact check his firehose of lies so she can say, “That’s a lie. Go to [link] for the facts and data.”
Her reply to his lies should be, “There he goes again.” (Co-opting Reagan) and then, “lies.” Before moving on to what she wants to say.
I respectfully disagree. That’s one of the places Biden mistepped. You can’t keep track of all the lies, counter them, and get your points across in the limited time. That’s the whole point of the gish gallop. It’s way easier to lie than it is to debunk a lie.
She needs to stay focused, laugh at him, and tell us all why she is better for the nation.
Completely agree. She should not get caught up in anything he offers as bait and especially not in his gish gallop of lies. She directs the narrative, not he. Otherwise, she’d repeat Biden’s mistake, which she is too smart to do.
Very interesting counterpoints here, and great suggestion from Arctic Stones. However, Biden's abilities were limited in this aspect. As a prosecutor, I believe she is highly trained to rebut Trump's lies in concise ways and still have time for her own arguments. But let's see. One thing we can all be sure of: the orange guy is in for a rough ride.
I've never been exited about these debates, PTSD from the last one, and I think it's a mistake to underestimate Trump. There are a lot of voters out there who can and are swayed by strong man vibes rather than actual policy. Especially when people can't make a direct correlation between particular policies and their standard of living. Second, Trumps strategy will be to just lie and flood the zone with crap as Banon said so I just hope Kamala Harris and team have a strategy to counter that, cause the debate moderators sure as heck ain't going to do it. They might even try and help him. I'd really have preferred no debate because I don't think there's much to be gained but a lot can be lost.
Did Trump look like a strong man at the last debate, or when he speaks in public? He may have once but not any more......
Trump a strong man when he speaks in public? Brian Tyler Cohen's verbatim readout of Trump's recent comments about his childcare policy demonstrates his utter incoherence and inability to string two connected thoughts together. It was a "word salad" of the highest order (see 1:35 - 3:20 below). A HS senior could have done better. And this from the man who repeatedly extols his intelligence. Even FoxNews' The Five called him out.
https://youtu.be/3dy09MRp2So
Mark, I see a common reasoning with me here. Memorable lines in presidential debates are usually not policy-focused but those that are humorous, or conveyed passion like "Would you shut up man" line of Biden in 2020. This is why I believe hitting Trump hard on his lies would be a good strategy for the VP. I strongly believe it would be memorable for VP to rebut Trump arguments and lies like she was the prosecutor in the court room.
I've been a little uneasy about all the confident predictions that Harris will slay Trump in the debate. The expectations are simply too high. Also, many Trump cultists view his ability to spew verbal diarrhea unchecked as a sign of strength.
I agree completely. Nothing will prevent him from deploying his firehose of falsehoods. I didn't think Biden should have given him a platform for that and don't think Harris should either. She has everything to lose and nothing to gain; same as Biden.
I disagree, most voters are still learning about Kamala Harris. It is essential she debate just to give voters a chance to see her lay out her case. She is very capable and people just have to see it with their own eyes.
I am not concerned about Trump spewing lies. She could probably ignore him entirely and just make her case to the public and it would be a success. Successfully parrying Trump's attacks and calling out his bs is just icing on the cake.
Plus I’m sure she’ll learn from Biden’s mistakes in the 1st debate. So I think she’ll do just fine!
IMO, what maga thinks shouldn't matter. We're going for everyone else. To most sane people, the traitor/rapist/racist/felon/fraudster/fascist/misogyinst is a weak, decrepit, deranged madman who fomented an insurrection...a disgrace to our country. As our VP has said...she knows his type. It's just a matter of what strategy she chooses. And with her brilliant team, including (I've heard) Pete Buttigieg playing the aforementioned felon, she will be extremely prepared. And she's managing expectations by saying we're the underdogs and acting like it. I cannot wait for this debate!!!
I would pay good money to see her debate preps with Sec. Pete playing TFG!!
OMG...I would love that!! Just imagining it makes me LOL!!
Me too. It would be amazing to watch!!
I would pay good money to see her debate prep with Sec. Pete playing TFG!!!
I agree. They need a real time website tracking the lies and providing correct information.
I agree with her counting them. I've been thinking she should be visibly adding them as he speaks (assuming there will be a lot of split screen), then beginning her responses with the total--it will allow her to call them out in real real-time for everyone watching (not just those following the fact-check feed) and drive him crazy.
Probably shouldn't do the *visible* counting while he's speaking *every* time, as the audience could get tired of it or annoyed or think it's too cute, smarty, or mean; like tennis, it's better to do something like this periodically and unpredictably if you really want it to be effective and throw him off his game (do it 2-3 times and the audience will assume you could do it every time).
I'd definitely announce the count every time you respond, but mix up when, where, and how you include it, for the same reasons as above. Predicting a lot more than three per answer, though--one group counted more than 600 in the first debate.
Tom, I agree. For me, it will be memorable for the audience. The most effective lines in presidential debates are not policy-focused; it’s often about the delivery style. And yes, calling out the lies will drive him crazy. I heard the VP's goal is to get under his skin, and that would be the right way to do it.
I'd love to see her ask, "Donald, are you off your meds again?" after he spews out something outrageous and false.
I used the contact page on the Harris campaign website a couple of days ago to suggest that as Trump talks/lies, she should look at him, raise her arm at a right angle, and silently raise her fingers one at a time -- thumb, then forefinger, etc. When he demands to know what she's doing, she should say, "Just countin' the lies. My website will have detailed fact-checking. So you just keep on talkin', and I'll keep on countin'." (Preferred alternative to "keep on talkin'": "keep on Gish gallopin'" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop><https://skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2012/12/04/the-gish-gallop/><https://skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2014/08/24/gish-gallop-and-goal-post-shift/>. He won't know what "Gish gallopin'" means, which will really frustrate him and get even deeper under his thinnest of thin skins. When/if he asks what it means, she could just say, "I thought a stable genius like you would know such a basic fact. I suggest you look it up after we're done here."]
Finger-counting the lies would disrupt Trump and send a memorable visual signal to the audience, perhaps even become a focal point of news coverage. And there doesn't appear to be a debate rule against finger-counting.
As Simon underscores, Democrats had excellent results in the 2022 Midterm Elections and have overperformed in just about every special election since Dobbs. Meanwhile, Trump underperfomed in so many of the Republican primaries.
What is astonishing is that NONE of the pollsters or aggregators seem to have adjusted their models to account for these developments, which really are quite dramatic. Whereas they have accounted for what they perceive as Trump’s overperformance in 2016 and again in 2020.
When we take into consideration the other metrics that Tom Bonier and Simon highlight in their discussion, there is strong reason to be very optimistic about the election – provided we do the work.
I am so encouraged!
Thank you, data nerds and your brilliant team. We love you!
Love the books on Tom's shelf—Rachel Bitecofer's Hit 'Em Where it Hurts alongside The Beastie Boys :)
I unfortunately missed the talk with Tom. He does such great work.
Tom was one of several very loud and very correct voices in 2022 warning folks about misinformation being spread by GOP narrative pollsters. The GOP uses pollsters to create narratives of momentum and to strategically "offset" more legitimate polling in the averages. This started in 2016 and has only gotten worse. Some of these pollsters are simply ridiculous. Here are just a few of the more obvious ones:
Big Data Poll – Director is Rich Baris, who operates through various social media platforms spreading right-wing misinformation. Check out his twitter feed. Not rated by 538 but included in 538 averages.
Echelon Insights – Founded by GOP operative Kristen Soltis Anderson. This firm consistently shows numbers to the right. Check out final Senate polls in 2002. They had the Senate going GOP 2+ or more. Somehow, they have a very respectable ranking with 538 at 22nd out of 277.
Fabrizio, Lee & Associates - Headed by Tony Fabrizio, Trump’s current pollster. This guy was suspected of sharing polling information with the Russians in 2016. Ranked 141st out of 277 pollsters by 538 and included in averages.
Insider Advantage - Co-Founder and Chairman is longtime GOP political operative Matt Towery. Other co-founder is Robert Cahaly, now heading up Trafalgar Group (see below). Check out IA’s crazy-town 2022 polls. They were absurd. Ranked 86th out of 277 pollsters by 538 and included in averages.
McLaughlin & Associates – Run by conservative GOP activist John McLaughlin. Ranked 277th out of 277 pollsters by 538. Not kidding. Dead last. Yet, still included in averages.
Rasmussen Reports – Needless to say, Scott Rasmussen’s first venture into pure right-wing polling misinformation. Lost 538 rating and removed from 538 averages.
RMG Research – Scott Rasmussen is also the head person here. Always leans heavy right. Ranked 60th out of 277 pollsters by 538 and included in averages.
SoCal Strategies – Closely affiliated with various MAGA online sites, including Red Eagle Politics. Check out twitter feed and you get the picture. Not rated by 538 but included in 538 averages.
Trafalgar Group – Robert Cahaly is the leader here. We all know what they do – weights for hidden Trump voters. This firm got lucky in 2016 and has been very wrong every time since. See 2022 polls for comic relief. Ranked 273rd out of 277 pollsters by 538 and included in averages.
And as I wrote the above, McLaughlin - ranked dead last among pollsters by 538 (see above) - just dropped a set of new national polls showing Trump up by 2 points with LVs.
If you believe that one, I got some oceanfront property to sell you here in Oklahoma.
JCOK, you understand that I was one who discovered the fake red wave polling and brought it to everyone's attention in 2022? This was a bit of a strange note as this has been well documented. But yes there continues to be too much Republican polling in the averages for us to feel comfortable with it all. As I said last night because of all this R polling I think 538's averages are .5 to 1 pt too Republican.
Ohh gosh, sorry... It was probably Tom picking it up from you then. At the time I was following Tom's twitter feed and wasn't following you.
Your last point is reassuring, especially since the average has swung half a point away from Kamala since her high point. But I’m not aware that pollsters have adjusted their models for Democratic consistent overperfomance, and Trump’s primary underperformance, since Dobbs.
The huge spike in Dem enthusiasm we've seen in recent weeks is almost certainly not showing up in their models. Our basic point is that we did much better than folks thought in 2022 given our intensity advantage when the polls were not as good as they are now. We are arguing here that if there is an overperformance either way it far more likely to be with us than Trump given what we've been seeing since Dobbs. My view right now is that we have the opportunity to turn this into the election we all want it to be if we do the work. A good strong win is a possibility, an opportunity not a done deal.
As of yesterday evening, they hadn't included ABC's poll showing her up by six with LV, which is really strange given that (a) whether with Ipsos or the Post, ABC is *way* more highly rated than any of the pollsters JCOK mentioned (b) ABC publicly announced those results days ago (c) ABC *owns* 538. What's up with that?
Thanks for this rundown. Always suspected some of those named here were tainted, but had no idea how to confirm it. Is there an aggregator that compiles the profiles of all these polling outfits in one place (vs. googling each one separately)?
The above is just a sampling. There are a lot more. And they pop up like rabbit turds, many times with the same people involved but under a different name for marketing.
Assuming it's the same firm, Big Data *was* rated in 2021 when 538 was still giving out letter grades. It got an F. ActiVote is another unrated pollster that recently dumped new data into the national mix. In the old days, 538 used to give new pollsters the benefit of the doubt and rate them slightly above average (they all got B/C grades) until proven otherwise. I hope after the 2022 debacle, they aren't doing that anymore...
I had a conflict last night... our local committee. I've been monitoring other stuff, like public economic expectations, public enthusiasm, the Lichtman 13 keys theory.....
I still think FT 6 is under the radar and can generate a blue tsunami. Tempus fugit but millions of unrepresented folk trend Democratic. Simon was the speaker last March when we added 11,000 new Democrats in N. Carolina in one day. https://www.fieldteam6.org/
This afternoon phone banks to Florida, at 2 pm edt and Pennsylvania @ 4 pm. https://www.mobilize.us/ft6/event/581992/
FT6 also offers free texts into many of the same areas listed. https://www.fieldteam6.org/free-byop-textbanks will be open.
On Saturday the textbanks, featuring mass texts to swing states https://www.fieldteam6.org/free-byop-textbanks
Great work by FT6!
Thanks, Simon and Tom, for last night! A real dose of hopium!
Great, great Zoom last night. I am watching it again today - I need the encouragement. And of course tonight I'll be postcarding with Hopium. Simon is keeping me sane! VERY disappointed Substack's new Election tab lists Nate Silvers stats!
Great zoom meeting last night. I learned so much and feel much more confident. News from DOJ is also welcome. I do think Garland has been good at on the ground law enforcement, as with prosecuting J6 rioters so suspected he and others agencies would be effective with election security.
I totally agree about Garland. Donald has called for protests and unrest over his court dates, but that did not happen. There has been reporting that trouble-makers chose not to engage because of the prosecutions of more than 1000 of the Jan6 rioters. I realize that people are fed up with the slowness of our judicial system. My personal belief that has come from a ton of reading and research is that there were Trump holdovers that gummed up the works. If I'm right, then this will come out over time. In any case, we're getting a new administration and a new cabinet soon. Lots to look forward to.
A little after-action report: last night I had 80 friends over at my house (here in West L.A.) for phone banking and post carding. We handwrote 217 postcards to voters in CA-13 for Adam Gray, we handwrote 748 VoteForward letters to low-propensity voters in PA and AZ, and we made hundreds of phone calls for Harris/Walz to voters in Nevada. Not bad for a Wednesday night in early Sept! Let's keep it up, all!
as my daughter would say, Amazeballs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you so much, Patrick!
Wow! Thanks for the work and the inspiration, Patrick! You bowl me over.
Wow! Way to go!
Simon, does Tom’s early-vote data also capture mail-in ballots somehow, either requested or returned? If not, is anyone tracking mail-in requests by party? (Not in states where everyone gets one, of course.)