Jon Ralston: the dems are in trouble in Nevada

[ProgressiveModerate]

And I thought Ralston was viewed as the "Oracle of Nevada", yet it seems like there are still those insistent that Democrats will sweep Nevada next week, in spite of his warnings. They seem almost as confident about their prospects across the board as they were in 2018.

Can you please give it a rest? This whole schtick is very haughty, not to mention unnecessary; in this thread there are now 5 posts which emphasize R's chances compared to 3 that emphasize D's chances. Just say that you think Republicans are favored in Nevada; the fact that you think people who disagree with you are wrong is implied by the very fact that you disagree with them.

Of course I disagree with them, and as I said, I'm not conceding my ground as I've done before. There is a large segment of posters on this forum who believe that we are in for a decisive Democratic wave next week, and think Republicans are set to lose every or almost every competitive race. They're not going to allow some pundit or some pollster to deter them from that, even if they relied on said pundit and said pollster in the past.

OK. Who cares? Either they're right or they're wrong, and we'll see which one soon enough. However, gloating about how much smarter you are than them before the election is even held contributes no insights. At least if it was a week from today and we all saw that a red wave had just occurred, we could perhaps conclude that your method of analysis is superior to those you're criticizing, but for all we know now they could be right; I don't think they are, but I certainly can't begin to evaluate where they went wrong without results. You're definitely not the only offender here, but that's part of the problem; every thread on this board is full to bursting with premature derision to the point that it's crowding out actual analysis.

That's what I'm pushing against. You are all concerned when someone comes on here and presents an optimistic prediction for Republicans, but when they do it for Democrats, I don't hear the same kinds of complaints. Most people on here would be losing themselves if Ralston had said the exact opposite thing about Nevada, and most people would be losing themselves if the early data was unquestionably and undeniably good for Democrats.

The problem with people here is that they allow their bias to dictate how they perceive everything, whether it's how "legitimate" a pollster is when they show results they don't like, or if anecdotal data is posted that doesn't match "what they feel" or "believe" to be the reality. I'm tired of being given a sanctimonious lecture when no one's doing that for those who they think are correct.

Even on more subjective issues on messaging, most election pundits have an unavoidable bias since if you're a Dem, ofc Dems messages are more likely to resonate with you and vise-versa. When I see all these conservatives posting about how great it is Republicans are at talking about the border, I sort of laugh, but to a lot of folks that is a motivating issue.

[ProgressiveModerate]

One thing worth noting is that Nevada turnout dynamics have always heavily favored Rs, with heavily black and Hispanic parts of the Vegas Metro having far lower turnout than whiter and more Republican suburbs like Henderson.

Ig the thing I'm confused about here is does the data suggest the turnout dynamics are outright worse for Dems than years like 2018 and 2020, or is it just picking up on the fact that Henderson has double the turnout of downtown Las Vegas in any normal cycle?

[ProgressiveModerate]

Ok I went in and looked at the data and I really don't think it's as bad as some are making it to be, but is also not great. The wild cards are the postal service, e-day turnout, and if these independents lean a certain way.

Yes, turnout in heavily Republican areas like Henderson is notably better than many of the strongest D precincts in downtown Vegas. But people are forgetting that Republican suburbs like Henderson ALWAYS have significantly higher turnout rates than the more Hispanic and Black parts of the city.

The area of Las Vegas that looks brutal for Dems is heavily Hispanic western parts of Las Vegas. Downtown and North Las Vegas seem pretty good all things considering.

One wild card is rapidly growing areas around Enterprise which has historically been lower turnout but has been getting better in recent cycles and seems to be doing pretty well in the early vote. The area is highly competative politically, and includes a mix of whites, asians, and hispanics.

If anything, Reno is what concerns me more rn.

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://twitter.com/laralogan/status/1588199746975322112

Wow. Some hidden videos showing that the Dems think many Hispanics are anti-gay.

What just concerns me is all these volunteers and workers who just seem not very bright in our politics and seem like bad communicators towards others. The point is to build a broad coalition; every voter is one you want to try to win. I think the way many staffers on both sides talk down to voters of the opposing party is messed up and exposes a larger cultural problem.

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://twitter.com/laralogan/status/1588199746975322112
Wow. Some hidden videos showing that the Dems think many Hispanics are anti-gay.

Woah, it is really offensive that a staffer said something that is extremely accurate and well known by literally all children of immigrants from Latin America!

He said it with such a mean-spirited tone, though. People don't like to be called names, especially by short, effeminate males.

The best equivalent is when a lot of news outlets associated with the “liberal elite” attributed Trump’s 2016 win to selfish racist and dumb white working class voters. I think that really sealed the nail in the coffin for a lot of these voters being gone for Dems. Also, when Republicans talk down about cities and the people who live in them, often referencing minorities, that makes me frustrated and is part of the reason why they tend to do so poorly in urban areas. There also seems to be a general resentment of young college educated people by Rs.

Even if some of these things may be true in your mind, best to keep them to yourself.

If you want to build a broad coalition, you have to make everyone feel included and meet people where they’re at. It doesn’t mean you have to sacrifice your values though. Even though I think he’ll lose, I think someone like Tim Ryan (and Sherrod Brown) have done a good job at meeting voters where they’re at and trying to connect and even embrace them, not look down on them.

[ProgressiveModerate]

And I thought Ralston was viewed as the "Oracle of Nevada", yet it seems like there are still those insistent that Democrats will sweep Nevada next week, in spite of his warnings. They seem almost as confident about their prospects across the board as they were in 2018.

Can you please give it a rest? This whole schtick is very haughty, not to mention unnecessary; in this thread there are now 5 posts which emphasize R's chances compared to 3 that emphasize D's chances. Just say that you think Republicans are favored in Nevada; the fact that you think people who disagree with you are wrong is implied by the very fact that you disagree with them.

Of course I disagree with them, and as I said, I'm not conceding my ground as I've done before. There is a large segment of posters on this forum who believe that we are in for a decisive Democratic wave next week, and think Republicans are set to lose every or almost every competitive race. They're not going to allow some pundit or some pollster to deter them from that, even if they relied on said pundit and said pollster in the past.

OK. Who cares? Either they're right or they're wrong, and we'll see which one soon enough. However, gloating about how much smarter you are than them before the election is even held contributes no insights. At least if it was a week from today and we all saw that a red wave had just occurred, we could perhaps conclude that your method of analysis is superior to those you're criticizing, but for all we know now they could be right; I don't think they are, but I certainly can't begin to evaluate where they went wrong without results. You're definitely not the only offender here, but that's part of the problem; every thread on this board is full to bursting with premature derision to the point that it's crowding out actual analysis.

That's what I'm pushing against. You are all concerned when someone comes on here and presents an optimistic prediction for Republicans, but when they do it for Democrats, I don't hear the same kinds of complaints. Most people on here would be losing themselves if Ralston had said the exact opposite thing about Nevada, and most people would be losing themselves if the early data was unquestionably and undeniably good for Democrats.

The problem with people here is that they allow their bias to dictate how they perceive everything, whether it's how "legitimate" a pollster is when they show results they don't like, or if anecdotal data is posted that doesn't match "what they feel" or "believe" to be the reality. I'm tired of being given a sanctimonious lecture when no one's doing that for those who they think are correct.

You want an unscanctimonious post? Okay.

Let me put it this way. I agree with your post. I agree with the whole bias argument you make and the double standard point. My entire forum posting history for the past year has been talking about how Atlas is a hive mind and full of Dem optimists who aren’t grounded in reality. And yet even I am tempted to switch to a wbrocks level D hack when I read you arguing here. I don’t know why, but for all the talk about sanctimony, you seem like the sanctimonious one here. Take this how you want, but you aren’t helping your case.

Sanctimony ought to be met with sanctimony. I'm merely dealing out the medicine that many posters routinely deal out here, and in ways that are excessively hackish and irritating to read. They don't like when I do it, but they cheer each other on for doing the same. It is absolute hypocrisy on their part. I understand now why ElectionsGuy and other posters have gotten fed up with this place. I don't encounter this level of hackishness elsewhere but on this forum.

Being unwilling to recognize or consider suspicious polling methodology in determining quality of polls is hackish in itself. A number of R-friendly pollsters and a D-friendly pollster released sets of polls throughout the cycle without providing any detail on methodology - we often saw contradictory results from them like "D+3 in WA" and "D+16 in CO." Looking at this and concluding "yep valid" is just as bad as a certain Massachusetts avatar concluding what they believe should happen and then going to find supporting evidence.

There are plenty of D and R hacks here, as well as a load of D doomers. They're all incredibly annoying in the sheer amount of confidence they have in their predictions. Criticizing people for pointing out polling inconsistency, however, isn't much better.

There is no world where the following occur simultaneously in 2022:
CO: D+16
WA: D+3
NH: Even
AZ: D+2
PA: R+2

Honestly the NPV and Senate/House polling doesn't seem to line up very well even on average. A good example would be those recent Siena polls that showed Dems ahead in NY-19 and NY-22 yet according to them we're in an R+4 NPV.