Iowa

[Pete Whitehead]

I think there specific issues in the prairies in 1988 (agricultural depression basically). It's often forgotten how close Dukakis came to carrying South Dakota in that election - ina nything approaching UNS, Clinton should have carried that state in 1992 but performed relatively poorly there (as he did also actually in Iowa)

[sanders]

Nov 3, 2024 10:08:18 GMT The Bishop said:

Both those results are partly explainable by demographics, though.

The farms crisis in the 1980s. Iowa was the most Democratic state in the nation in 1988. It was also the only state to swing towards the Republicans in 1992. Clinton, Obama and Gore really cooked in the Hawkeye State. So did Tom Harkin until he retired from the Senate in 2014.

There’ll likely be a swing back to Democrats in IA. Tariffs are not popular in Iowa and the trade war didn’t exactly help soybean farmers. China imposed retaliatory tariffs on the cash crop in Trump’s last term. I think there’s genuine concern about a trade war and its attendant impacts on the farming sector in the Great Plains. We’ve also seen closer than expected polling in Kansas and a decidedly competitive Senate election in Nebraska.

To add to what Pete Whitehead says, Dukakis almost won Montana in 1988 and Clinton took the state with 37% of the vote in 1992. Any shift in the farming states may help Tester cling on in MT on Tuesday.

[The Bishop]

Nov 3, 2024 10:14:16 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

I think there specific issues in the prairies in 1988 (agricultural depression basically). It's often forgotten how close Dukakis came to carrying South Dakota in that election - ina nything approaching UNS, Clinton should have carried that state in 1992 but performed relatively poorly there (as he did also actually in Iowa)

Clinton did get quite close to carrying SD in 1996 though. Since then it has been very safe for the GOP.

[Tony Otim]

The Selzer poll just seems unbelievable, but if it did turn out to be anywhere near accurate, it will be fun to see the response of those arguing polls worldwide have a left bias..

[iain]

Nov 3, 2024 10:14:16 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

I think there specific issues in the prairies in 1988 (agricultural depression basically). It's often forgotten how close Dukakis came to carrying South Dakota in that election - ina nything approaching UNS, Clinton should have carried that state in 1992 but performed relatively poorly there (as he did also actually in Iowa)

Incidentally, the 1980s farm crisis would be the place to start if you were looking for reasons Iowa would trend strongly Democratic this year - that crisis was basically caused by a trade war, and the fact that one of the ~three coherent policies Trump has is across the board tariffs, could easily cause a backlash in Iowa specifically.

[willpower3]

I vaguely recall a poll in Ohio in 2016 which showed Clinton ahead by 2%. I don't think the pollster had quite the reputation of Selzer but possibly not far off.

[aargauer]

Nov 3, 2024 12:30:49 GMT Tony Otim said:

The Selzer poll just seems unbelievable, but if it did turn out to be anywhere near accurate, it will be fun to see the response of those arguing polls worldwide have a left bias..

What is actually shows is that people shouldn't let themselves be gaslight by obvious bullshit, especially by "experts". Obviously, if someone has a track record, that should be taken into account, but its not gospel.

I'm in two minds whether this was a push by someone on their way out, or BOTH her polling is crap and she was very unlucky with her sampling (its so ludicrously far out that both would have to be true).

Same story in Nevada. Jon Ralston is very good at presenting data, and a great writer. But his conclusion simply didn't match the data coming in. It was very clearly a herculean effort would be required with indies for dems to win. That was just a wrong prediction on anything like the balance of probabilities.

[stb12]

Nov 11, 2024 12:27:42 GMT aargauer said:

Nov 3, 2024 12:30:49 GMT Tony Otim said:

The Selzer poll just seems unbelievable, but if it did turn out to be anywhere near accurate, it will be fun to see the response of those arguing polls worldwide have a left bias..

What is actually shows is that people shouldn't let themselves be gaslight by obvious bullshit, especially by "experts". Obviously, if someone has a track record, that should be taken into account, but its not gospel.

I'm in two minds whether this was a push by someone on their way out, or BOTH her polling is crap and she was very unlucky with her sampling (its so ludicrously far out that both would have to be true).

Same story in Nevada. Jon Ralston is very good at presenting data, and a great writer. But his conclusion simply didn't match the data coming in. It was very clearly a herculean effort would be required with indies for dems to win. That was just a wrong prediction on anything like the balance of probabilities. 

I think Selzer has a long enough track record to give her at least some benefit of the doubt this year even with it being so far out. Clearly she’ll have to review her methodology if she’s going to continue and I believe she’s said that she will be doing so

[aargauer]

Nov 11, 2024 12:31:59 GMT stb12 said:

Nov 11, 2024 12:27:42 GMT aargauer said:

What is actually shows is that people shouldn't let themselves be gaslight by obvious bullshit, especially by "experts". Obviously, if someone has a track record, that should be taken into account, but its not gospel.

I'm in two minds whether this was a push by someone on their way out, or BOTH her polling is crap and she was very unlucky with her sampling (its so ludicrously far out that both would have to be true).

Same story in Nevada. Jon Ralston is very good at presenting data, and a great writer. But his conclusion simply didn't match the data coming in. It was very clearly a herculean effort would be required with indies for dems to win. That was just a wrong prediction on anything like the balance of probabilities. 

I think Selzer has a long enough track record to give her at least some benefit of the doubt this year even with it being so far out. Clearly she’ll have to review her methodology if she’s going to continue and I believe she’s said that she will be doing so

I would understand if it was merely a bad poll. but she was 17 points out. That's absolutely incredible. In the literal sense of the word. Extraordinary results invite extraordinary conclusions.

[sanders]

This is safely Conservative now, honestly.

[stb12]

Nov 11, 2024 12:34:42 GMT aargauer said:

Nov 11, 2024 12:31:59 GMT stb12 said:

I think Selzer has a long enough track record to give her at least some benefit of the doubt this year even with it being so far out. Clearly she’ll have to review her methodology if she’s going to continue and I believe she’s said that she will be doing so

I would understand if it was merely a bad poll. but she was 17 points out. That's absolutely incredible. In the literal sense of the word. Extraordinary results invite extraordinary conclusions.

No doubt it’s a huge blow, and after being famous for accuracy she’ll suddenly be famous for such a big miss. It’s possible the shock of the poll motivated some Trump voters to turn out late on but it can’t explain such a big difference

Although it was only Iowa based the history played a part in some believing there was a huge Harris surge nationwide being missed

[rcronald]

Nov 11, 2024 14:46:47 GMT carlton43 said:

Nov 11, 2024 12:34:42 GMT aargauer said:

I would understand if it was merely a bad poll. but she was 17 points out. That's absolutely incredible. In the literal sense of the word. Extraordinary results invite extraordinary conclusions.

Is it actually suspected that she massaged the result for deliberate political purposes?

The poll was leaked to Dem operatives before release, so who knows.

[stb12]

Her last poll in 2020 was positive for Trump as well as for the GOP in the Senate race, and that was when the state was still generally considered to be potentially competitive. I’m not sure if her personal politics are known but the history doesn’t indicate that she’d let partisanship influence the work even if she does favour Democrats. The reputation damage would hardly seem worth it either

[iain]

Nov 11, 2024 14:48:36 GMT rcronald said:

Nov 11, 2024 14:46:47 GMT carlton43 said:

Is it actually suspected that she massaged the result for deliberate political purposes?

The poll was leaked to Dem operatives before release, so who knows.

What possible motivation would she have to trash her hard-earned reputation to achieve absolutely zero benefit? Not to mention that her results in previous years (or indeed earlier this year!) have often been outliers from the polling average in the Republicans’ favour.

[eastmidlandsright]

Rumours that Sen Joni Ernst is a possible pick for Secretary of Defense. She is currently running for the Senate GOP Conference Chair but looks likely to lose to Tom Cotton so will lose her place in the leadership.

[stb12]

Nov 11, 2024 21:57:22 GMT eastmidlandsright said:

Rumours that Sen Joni Ernst is a possible pick for Secretary of Defense. She is currently running for the Senate GOP Conference Chair but looks likely to lose to Tom Cotton so will lose her place in the leadership.

Up for the re-election in 2026 so presumably Governor Reynolds could appoint someone until then and avoid a special election?

Going by history not having the incumbency for an Iowa contest would be a risk but it’s red turn has been confirmed beyond doubt this year, so it’ll probably be fine barring a lunatic being nominated