NYT LIVE POLL THREAD:

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

...

And Wallace leads outside the MOE before we are even to 100 respondents

...

[Dr. Arch]

...

And Wallace leads outside the MOE before we are even to 100 respondents

...

GG

[Pericles]

Wallace weirdly looks both evil and nice at the same time.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Wexton is getting close to leading outside the MOE also, and that is before we get to 50 respondents.

If both Wexton and Wallace are leading outside the MOE when both polls get to 150 respondents, NYT/Siena should just cancel the rest of those two polls, start polling elsewhere in districts that are actually competitive, and not poll any more Clinton-voting non-sunbelt suburban districts for the rest of the time until election day.

[BudgieForce]

If the numbers for Wexton and Wallace hold, it would put some merit behind the notion that Kavanaugh helped democrats in moderate congressional districts like these. But its still very early and we know how bouncy these upshots can get until they get a decent sized sample.

[Xing]

Wallace weirdly looks both evil and nice at the same time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-SVpUvFN8g

Anyway, let's not get too excited yet. The PA-01 sample size looks very pro-Democratic, but if Fitzpatrick continues to stay under Trump's approval, that's very bad for him.

[bilaps]

Wexton is getting close to leading outside the MOE also, and that is before we get to 50 respondents.

If both Wexton and Wallace are leading outside the MOE when both polls get to 150 respondents, NYT/Siena should just cancel the rest of those two polls, start polling elsewhere in districts that are actually competitive, and not poll any more Clinton-voting non-sunbelt suburban districts for the rest of the time until election day.

It's like 49 people in VA and a Trump approval of 35% in PA. Take it easy.

[wbrocks67]

Wallace weirdly looks both evil and nice at the same time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-SVpUvFN8g

Anyway, let's not get too excited yet. The PA-01 sample size looks very pro-Democratic, but if Fitzpatrick continues to stay under Trump's approval, that's very bad for him.

What's interesting as of right now is that the CW is that Fitz would pull some Dems, but right now Wallace is actually grabbing 20% of Rs.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

It's like 49 people in VA and a Trump approval of 35% in PA. Take it easy.

After these polls are done with, I hope we will all learn an important lesson - it is never too early to jump to conclusions about Clinton-voting non-sunbelt suburban districts.

The sample in VA-10 looks a bit funky, but I think we can be pretty confident that eventually these are going to settle in to be reasonably clear Dem leads. Maybe one or both may get to 10 points or under (following the same sort of trend as the NJ-03 poll), but they'll be clear enough nonetheless.

It is not even so much a question of whether it is right or wrong - it is the NYT/Siena LV model. There is something about the LV model that just makes it go absolutely nuts in these non-sunbelt Clinton suburban districts.

[DataGuy]

Not that I'm trying to be a selective poll critic, but Democrats winning females 69% to 26% is utterly unrealistic. That would be several points better than their 2016 margins with California females. PA-1 is not California.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Not that I'm trying to be a selective poll critic, but Democrats winning females 69% to 26% is utterly unrealistic. That would be several points better than their 2016 margins with California females. PA-1 is not California.

People said the same sort of things in reverse with regards to Dems holding on in 2010, that they couldn't possibly lose x demographic so badly (x was normally angry white men). Yeah, it will probably come down at least somewhat, but not enough to make a difference.

[wbrocks67]

Not that I'm trying to be a selective poll critic, but Democrats winning females 69% to 26% is utterly unrealistic. That would be several points better than their 2016 margins with California females. PA-1 is not California.

I mean, I doubt the final margin will be that high, but I also don't think we should underestimate the female suburban vote right now and how angry they are at the GOP

[DataGuy]

Nate Silver made an observation a few days ago that is very true: https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1049694810314031104.

Recent polls have been very extreme. Either the Democrat gets really bad news (TN-SEN, ND-SEN, TX-31), or the Republican is getting crushed (PA-1, VA-10). Even with the generic ballot, I have seen some polls that show a close race and others that show a double-digit Democrat lead. It's kind of hard to know what the national environment really looks like at this point.

Or maybe politics has become so polarized by geography that the national environment is no longer helpful in analyzing local races. I think the idea of a uniform national swing might be well past its prime.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

politics has become so polarized by geography that the national environment is no longer helpful in analyzing local races. I think the idea of a uniform national swing might be well past its prime.

[Brittain33]

Locked. New thread:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=303786.msg6464049#msg6464049