CA SurveyUSA: Trump gets crushed

[Sir Mohamed]

SurveyUSA has also polled CA for the GE, not much to see here. I'm posting it for the record.

Biden 59, Trump 32
Sanders 60, Trump 34
Warren 56, Trump 35
Buttigieg 52, Trump 34
Harris 56, Trump 35
Bloomberg 50, Trump 34

2,039 RVs.

Direct link

[Skye]

I mean, if anything, he's not polling *that* badly.

[Sir Mohamed]

I mean, if anything, he's not polling *that* badly.

CA polling overestimates GOPers, like Cox in 2018. My prediction for 2020 is 65-31% Dem.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Those numbers are basically the same as SUSA's last CA poll, which I think was in September.

[Podgy the Bear]

We need a million of those Democratic voters to move out to states that will get about 365 EV and a filibuster-proof Senate.  And the Democratic nominee would still get 60 percent of the vote in CA.

[RI]

I mean, if anything, he's not polling *that* badly.

CA polling overestimates GOPers, like Cox in 2018. My prediction for 2020 is 65-31% Dem.

Not really, unless you're only talking margin. The final Atlas polling average for R's with the actual in parentheses and the R over-prediction to the right:

2018 Gov: 40 (38): 2%
2016 Pres: 30 (31): -1%
2014 Gov*: 37 (40): -3%
2012 Pres: 38 (37): 1%
2012 Sen: 36 (37): -1%

Average: -0.4%

On average, the final polls actually tend to nail the R share in CA. What they usually do is under-predict the D share of the vote. If Trump is averaging around 34% in the polls, we shouldn't really expect him to do much different than that.

*I threw out two high undecided outliers, which actually helps the R over-prediction argument.

[Cinemark]

I mean, if anything, he's not polling *that* badly.

CA polling overestimates GOPers, like Cox in 2018. My prediction for 2020 is 65-31% Dem.

Not really, unless you're only talking margin. The final Atlas polling average for R's with the actual in parentheses and the R over-prediction to the right:

2018 Gov: 40 (38): 2%
2016 Pres: 30 (31): -1%
2014 Gov*: 37 (40): -3%
2012 Pres: 38 (37): 1%
2012 Sen: 36 (37): -1%

Average: -0.4%

On average, the final polls actually tend to nail the R share in CA. What they usually do is under-predict the D share of the vote. If Trump is averaging around 34% in the polls, we shouldn't really expect him to do much different than that.

*I threw out two high undecided outliers, which actually helps the R over-prediction argument.

I think it would be more accurate to say SUSA tends to underestimate democrat margins in California. The underestimated democrat support in both 2016 and 2018.

[DrScholl]

I don't know why Republicans think Trump is going to do better than in California than in 2016. At best he'll hit 35%.

[Mr. Smith]

Watch him get Hillary's Wyoming numbers or Carter's re-election numbers in Alaska instead of this.

[pbrower2a]

Donald Trump is the obnoxious, overbearing New Yorker who fits the ugly image of a city slicker. His type isn't popular in New York, either.   

[Adam Griffin]

If the third-party vote share goes from 6% nationally to like 2% (which I somewhat expect and can see easily happening), then it's perfectly possible that Trump exceeds his 2016 percentage; the Democrat getting ~70% in CA seems like nothing more than a pipedream.

However, it's a stretch to see his margin (-30) improving by much if any. Something like 64-34 seems more realistic at this point.

[ElectionsGuy]

He'll probably do worse.

[Epaminondas]

If Trump falls below 30% in Cali, that would imperil the 4 GOP congressional districts that were tight in 2018, CA-1, CA-4, CA-22 & CA-50.

We could expect a 50-3 delegation in 2021.

[Epaminondas]

We need a million of those Democratic voters to move out to states that will get about 365 EV and a filibuster-proof Senate.  And the Democratic nominee would still get 60 percent of the vote in CA.

1 million well-meaning Dem Californians could bring home 12 (TWELVE) Senate seats in 2020
Wyoming, Alaska, both Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, West Virginia, Nebraska, Kansas, Arkansas and Iowa were all won by under 100,000 votes in 2014, and often far less.
Plus Alabama.

It's puzzling that nobody acts on this. A large segment of US voters appear very naive about how their democracy works.

[Farmlands]

We need a million of those Democratic voters to move out to states that will get about 365 EV and a filibuster-proof Senate.  And the Democratic nominee would still get 60 percent of the vote in CA.

It's puzzling that nobody acts on this. A large segment of US voters appear very naive about how their democracy works.

Yeah, I wonder why there are so few people ready to leave everything they have behind, for a temporary boost to their political party. I don't think some people here get that the world is not at all similar to Atlas Forum members.

[Epaminondas]

Yeah, I wonder why there are so few people ready to leave everything they have behind, for a temporary boost to their political party. I don't think some people here get that the world is not at all similar to Atlas Forum members.

Registering in another state is just paperwork, and land in these states is cheap.
Millions of students make that tradeoff every year when they register.

"the world is not at all similar to Atlas Forum members" : irrelevant, since it would only take a million politically involved Californians owning a small plot of land in a red state and heading there just on Election Day to overcome the undemocratic Electoral College & Senate.

It may not be the most ethical solution, but if the current popular vote imbalance persists, the issue will come to a head one way or another.

[Eraserhead]

Damn, Bloomberg sucks!

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Bloomberg is a Republican who turned Dem, he embraced Guiliani during 911

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yeah, I wonder why there are so few people ready to leave everything they have behind, for a temporary boost to their political party. I don't think some people here get that the world is not at all similar to Atlas Forum members.

Registering in another state is just paperwork, and land in these states is cheap.
Millions of students make that tradeoff every year when they register.

"the world is not at all similar to Atlas Forum members" : irrelevant, since it would only take a million politically involved Californians owning a small plot of land in a red state and heading there just on Election Day to overcome the undemocratic Electoral College & Senate.

It may not be the most ethical solution, but if the current popular vote imbalance persists, the issue will come to a head one way or another.

I'm pretty sure that if someone living in a state that doesn't exactly a reputation for affordability has an extra $70k laying around (that's a "cheap" house in the US even in flyover country) there are far more productive ways to invest that to help the Democratic Party than buying a house in a swing state that would earn them a a max of two more votes and wouldn't run the risk of prosecution for voter and/or tax fraud.

The idea that the laws set up to specifically govern voter registration by college students also allow anyone who owns any speck of land in a state to register to vote there is jaw dropping in its ignorance, and even moreso than claiming voter registration is "just paperwork". This is like as dumb as that Republican Representative who thought he could just register with a post office as his address.

[Epaminondas]

As stated above, the idea of registering in a second state is so "jaw-droppingly ignorant" that on top of millions of students, even candidates running for office carry it out regularly.

It's also fascinating to see some people frame American electoral law as logical and consistent when it led to Bush being elected by 5 men on the Supreme Court and Trump rising to the presidency while losing the popular vote by 2M.

Moral pontificating aside, what's to stop such an idea? In what documents are conditions on residency or presence in order to obtain voting rights spelled out?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

As stated above, the idea of registering in a second state is so "jaw-droppingly ignorant" that on top of millions of students, even candidates running for office carry it out regularly.

YES BECAUSE THERE'S ACTUALLY LAWS IN PLACE FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF ALLOWING STUDENTS TO DO IT.

Yes, candidates move for this purpose too. They have more at stake than a single vote, shocking.

It's also fascinating to see some people frame American electoral law as logical and consistent when it led to Bush being elected by 5 men on the Supreme Court and Trump rising to the presidency while losing the popular vote by 2M.

I...don't think anyone was saying that?

Moral pontificating aside, what's to stop such an idea? In what documents are conditions on residency or presence in order to obtain voting rights spelled out?

The laws governing voter registration of each state.

[Epaminondas]

What are the conditions in California, for example, or Minnesota?