GA-PPP: Biden +2

[MT Treasurer]

This theory that NC was going to be a hyper-competitive Tossup or Tilt D state while GA would remain likely R or whatever was always nonsense.

[Don't blame me I voted for Harris]

The theory that Biden is just running up his margins in heavily blue states really isn't looking so hot right now.

Hope this holds.

What are you talking about?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

This doesn't look egregiously off on the education weighting. Maybe marginally too college educated but not enough to change the topline by more than a point (if that).

This polls seems to have way too few college educated voters.  The poll is 34% high school or less education, while Georgia exit polls in 2016 were only 19% high school or less.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/georgia/president

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

This doesn't look egregiously off on the education weighting. Maybe marginally too college educated but not enough to change the topline by more than a point (if that).

This polls seems to have way too few college educated voters.  The poll is 34% high school or less education, while Georgia exit polls in 2016 were only 19% high school or less.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/georgia/president

According to analysis of the 2016 election by places like Center for American progress, the exit polls way overestimated how many college educated people voted. This lines up with precinct analysis that showed dems winning basically every single highly educated place. Hillary had to have won college educated whites by a decent margin based on precinct analysis

[Illini Moderate]

The theory that Biden is just running up his margins in heavily blue states really isn't looking so hot right now.

Hope this holds.

What are you talking about?

I think they are referring to some people's theory that Biden's larger leads only reflect him winning safe/likely D states by a much larger amount, rather than him running up the margins in swing or lean R states.

[Darthpi - Crush the Oligarchy]

The theory that Biden is just running up his margins in heavily blue states really isn't looking so hot right now.

Hope this holds.

What are you talking about?

I think they are referring to some people's theory that Biden's larger leads only reflect him winning safe/likely D states by a much larger amount, rather than him running up the margins in swing or lean R states.

This exactly.

[Don't blame me I voted for Harris]

The theory that Biden is just running up his margins in heavily blue states really isn't looking so hot right now.

Hope this holds.

What are you talking about?

I think they are referring to some people's theory that Biden's larger leads only reflect him winning safe/likely D states by a much larger amount, rather than him running up the margins in swing or lean R states.

Biden would have to be winning California and New York by like 40 points if he's winning the PV by 8-12 points and losing the election. This has already been discussed.

[Darthpi - Crush the Oligarchy]

The theory that Biden is just running up his margins in heavily blue states really isn't looking so hot right now.

Hope this holds.

What are you talking about?

I think they are referring to some people's theory that Biden's larger leads only reflect him winning safe/likely D states by a much larger amount, rather than him running up the margins in swing or lean R states.

Biden would have to be winning California and New York by like 40 points if he's winning the PV by 8-12 points and losing the election. This has already been discussed.

I know it has, but it's a point that is worth repeating, because a lot of people still believe it.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Undecideds in Georgia are notoriously R-leaning, right? So the closer Biden is to 50%, the better.

Republicans will also cheat, so best to be over 50% by a bit for some cushion.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Undecideds in Georgia are notoriously R-leaning, right? So the closer Biden is to 50%, the better.

I don’t think so, the polls in 2016 and 2018 were very accurate in Georgia. The 2014 polls underestimated the Republicans by a few points but nothing major.

Good point.  The polls were off across the board in 2014 (undercounting Republican support), so that was even more a product of that general reality than with any Georgia-specific late deciders being GOP type of thing.

[South Dakota Democrat]

This theory that NC was going to be a hyper-competitive Tossup or Tilt D state while GA would remain likely R or whatever was always nonsense.

Very true.  I think there's a solid chance of GA voting to the left of NC this time. (Not ridiculous to think about since GA was only about 1 point to the right of NC in 2016).

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

This doesn't look egregiously off on the education weighting. Maybe marginally too college educated but not enough to change the topline by more than a point (if that).

This polls seems to have way too few college educated voters.  The poll is 34% high school or less education, while Georgia exit polls in 2016 were only 19% high school or less.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/georgia/president

According to analysis of the 2016 election by places like Center for American progress, the exit polls way overestimated how many college educated people voted. This lines up with precinct analysis that showed dems winning basically every single highly educated place. Hillary had to have won college educated whites by a decent margin based on precinct analysis

In that case, how do you know what the correct weightings are?

It is quite possible that people responding to exit polls are lying to pollsters in overstating their education.  But this could also be true in regular polls.

[Granite City]

This doesn't look egregiously off on the education weighting. Maybe marginally too college educated but not enough to change the topline by more than a point (if that).

This polls seems to have way too few college educated voters.  The poll is 34% high school or less education, while Georgia exit polls in 2016 were only 19% high school or less.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/georgia/president

According to analysis of the 2016 election by places like Center for American progress, the exit polls way overestimated how many college educated people voted. This lines up with precinct analysis that showed dems winning basically every single highly educated place. Hillary had to have won college educated whites by a decent margin based on precinct analysis

In that case, how do you know what the correct weightings are?

It is quite possible that people responding to exit polls are lying to pollsters in overstating their education.  But this could also be true in regular polls.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2017/11/01/441926/voter-trends-in-2016/

I look to this generally, it's a good read

The Census Burea estimates are also pretty useful but I normally assume that the rate of Bachelor's degrees is a little higher in an election, see Georgia below

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-tps20.html

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

This doesn't look egregiously off on the education weighting. Maybe marginally too college educated but not enough to change the topline by more than a point (if that).

This polls seems to have way too few college educated voters.  The poll is 34% high school or less education, while Georgia exit polls in 2016 were only 19% high school or less.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/georgia/president

According to analysis of the 2016 election by places like Center for American progress, the exit polls way overestimated how many college educated people voted. This lines up with precinct analysis that showed dems winning basically every single highly educated place. Hillary had to have won college educated whites by a decent margin based on precinct analysis

In that case, how do you know what the correct weightings are?

It is quite possible that people responding to exit polls are lying to pollsters in overstating their education.  But this could also be true in regular polls.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2017/11/01/441926/voter-trends-in-2016/

I look to this generally, it's a good read

The Census Burea estimates are also pretty useful but I normally assume that the rate of Bachelor's degrees is a little higher in an election, see Georgia below

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-tps20.html

I’ll certainly take a look at the posted article.
But using census population estimates to estimate turnout in any election sounds like a terrible idea to me.  More educated voters have been overwhelmingly more likely to turnout of for generations:


http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics

[Granite City]

This doesn't look egregiously off on the education weighting. Maybe marginally too college educated but not enough to change the topline by more than a point (if that).

This polls seems to have way too few college educated voters.  The poll is 34% high school or less education, while Georgia exit polls in 2016 were only 19% high school or less.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/georgia/president

According to analysis of the 2016 election by places like Center for American progress, the exit polls way overestimated how many college educated people voted. This lines up with precinct analysis that showed dems winning basically every single highly educated place. Hillary had to have won college educated whites by a decent margin based on precinct analysis

In that case, how do you know what the correct weightings are?

It is quite possible that people responding to exit polls are lying to pollsters in overstating their education.  But this could also be true in regular polls.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2017/11/01/441926/voter-trends-in-2016/

I look to this generally, it's a good read

The Census Burea estimates are also pretty useful but I normally assume that the rate of Bachelor's degrees is a little higher in an election, see Georgia below

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-tps20.html

I’ll certainly take a look at the posted article.
But using census population estimates to estimate turnout in any election sounds like a terrible idea to me.  More educated voters have been overwhelmingly more likely to turnout of for generations:


http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics

You're correct on the census point, I just use it whenever I do educational unskewing so I'm being as favourable to Trump as possible - prepare yourself for the worst and all that!

[Interlocutor]

I know there's 2 Senate races that could potentially flip & the polls indicate it's a tossup & there's clearly Dem enthusiasm in the state, but it's just too risky to expand to Georgia. Best to play it safe and campaign exclusively in states that'll be "just enough" to get to 270, AZ/MI/PA/WI. No insurance policies here!


We shall crush Trump with a modest 280-290 victory and a 50-50 Senate!

[CookieDamage]

I know there's 2 Senate races that could potentially flip & the polls indicate it's a tossup & there's clearly Dem enthusiasm in the state, but it's just too risky to expand to Georgia. Best to play it safe and campaign exclusively in states that'll be "just enough" to get to 270, AZ/MI/PA/WI. No insurance policies here!


We shall crush Trump with a modest 280-290 victory and a 50-50 Senate!

What?

Nobody's saying Biden should go crazy campaigning in Georgia, but some campaign stops and spending would help BOTH senate races here.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I know there's 2 Senate races that could potentially flip & the polls indicate it's a tossup & there's clearly Dem enthusiasm in the state, but it's just too risky to expand to Georgia. Best to play it safe and campaign exclusively in states that'll be "just enough" to get to 270, AZ/MI/PA/WI. No insurance policies here!


We shall crush Trump with a modest 280-290 victory and a 50-50 Senate!

What?

Nobody's saying Biden should go crazy campaigning in Georgia, but some campaign stops and spending would help BOTH senate races here.

I think it's time to bring your sarcasm detector in for a tune-up.

[RFKFan68]

I know there's 2 Senate races that could potentially flip & the polls indicate it's a tossup & there's clearly Dem enthusiasm in the state, but it's just too risky to expand to Georgia. Best to play it safe and campaign exclusively in states that'll be "just enough" to get to 270, AZ/MI/PA/WI. No insurance policies here!


We shall crush Trump with a modest 280-290 victory and a 50-50 Senate!

I was about to chew you out. LMAO!

[CookieDamage]

I know there's 2 Senate races that could potentially flip & the polls indicate it's a tossup & there's clearly Dem enthusiasm in the state, but it's just too risky to expand to Georgia. Best to play it safe and campaign exclusively in states that'll be "just enough" to get to 270, AZ/MI/PA/WI. No insurance policies here!


We shall crush Trump with a modest 280-290 victory and a 50-50 Senate!

What?

Nobody's saying Biden should go crazy campaigning in Georgia, but some campaign stops and spending would help BOTH senate races here.

I think it's time to bring your sarcasm detector in for a tune-up.

Cut the cameras... dead ass.

[Stockdale for Veep]

Dems needs to be averaging around +4 to be Kemp-proof.

[Interlocutor]

I know there's 2 Senate races that could potentially flip & the polls indicate it's a tossup & there's clearly Dem enthusiasm in the state, but it's just too risky to expand to Georgia. Best to play it safe and campaign exclusively in states that'll be "just enough" to get to 270, AZ/MI/PA/WI. No insurance policies here!


We shall crush Trump with a modest 280-290 victory and a 50-50 Senate!

What?

Nobody's saying Biden should go crazy campaigning in Georgia, but some campaign stops and spending would help BOTH senate races here.

But like, it's just not ready yet

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Biden doesnt have to win GA, but Ossoff is beating Perdue, we can classify, now that GA is what LA used to be, a state Dems can win runoffs in. Nunn and Carter kept it close in 2014, until R wave swept the country

[Progressive Pessimist]

This poll is sweet like a peach.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Flawless beautiful Ossoff .