Jon Ralston: the dems are in trouble in Nevada

[Matty]

[Devils30]

What's in is not looking great for Dems. Still a few big questions left though:

1) How many mail ballots are backlogged (USPS or sitting in elections offices)

2) How do indies break? No guarantee they break for Laxalt like the GOP is expecting

3) Do younger Dems go back to in person voting like 2018?

[Umengus]

If you consider that EV is "predictive" only in FL and in NV, it's very bad for dems.

[MT Treasurer]

They were never not in trouble in NV this cycle.

[Minnesota Mike]

Ralston is a good source for numbers but he is not god. There really are no comps for a midterm in Nevada with universal mail ballot delivery. Is there going to be a late mail ballot surge like happens in other primarily VBM states such as CA, OR, WA, CO? What will election day look like? There is no Trump hatred/COVID fear like 2020 to drive Dems to get their ballots in in as early as possible this time around. I normally am more of a believer than most in how much early vote can tell us but with the process so different this year I don't think even Ralston has a firm grip on what the numbers mean.

BTW if you are a Democrat looking for hopeful threads to hold onto a a couple of things.

- Democrats are winning Washoe county despite Republicans having a small registration edge.

- Counting today we have 2 days of early in person voting left. We have 8 more days when mail ballots can arrive.

[wbrocks67]

I mean, looking at the data - in 2018, there wasn't much mail (if any at all?) and the pre-election day early vote he touts was D+47,000

This year though the early vote extends all the way into next Friday technically, because that's when mail in ballots can be counted until. But even if you just take pre-election day, that goes thru Tuesday morning.

Early in person ends tomorrow. Say Ds are at about +25,000 by then. We still have Sat, Sun, Mon, Tue mail to be counted.... which could easily inflate the firewall since there is no in person voting.

Theoretically you could have up to like D+40,000 by Tuesday, not that from from 2018's figure.

Who knows what will happen, but it's a total apples to oranges comparison when you're comparing a year that the early vote is totally done pre-election day and this year, we've still got a ton of mail to count.

[Calthrina950]

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.

[Horus]

This has been obvious for months.

[Kamala's side hoe]

https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/the-early-voting-blog-2022

This headline from October was interesting though:
https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/many-more-dems-switching-parties-than-republicans-during-last-three-months

UPDATED, 10/4/22, 9:15 AM

There are still more Dems becoming Rs than the other way around, and many more Dems leaving the party to become indies than there are Rs. But many more indies are becoming Dems than they are becoming Rs, so the trends are mixed. The Dems have been extending their lead over the GOP in Clark over the last six weeks, but two out of the three trends here still favor the Rs.

The latest (last three months in parentheses):

Democrat to Republican: 573 (1,573)

Republican to Democrat: 387 (963)


Democrat to nonpartisan: 1,391 (3,545)

Republican to nonpartisan: 729 (2,078)

NP to Democrat: 1,822 (4,639)

NP to GOP: 1,228 (3,298)

[GALeftist]

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.

[Calthrina950]

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.

[It’s so Joever]

He has the right answer but the wrong formula.

[GALeftist]

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.

[It’s so Joever]

Wow at this rate I may not be the most annoying CO avatar soon

[GeorgiaModerate]

Wow at this rate I may not be the most annoying CO avatar soon

You probably aren't the most at present, but you're still on the leader board.

[Pericles]

It could be a dead-even race as polls show where Democrats could win by 0.5% (and so NV would be Titanium Tilt D) or lose by that margin, though if he does think Republicans have a clear advantage that would be concerning.

[SnowLabrador]

This has been obvious for months.

Twenty-four months, to be more specific.

[Devils30]

I think it's quite likely we get a narrow Laxalt win while Dems hold onto 3/4 House seats. The closest seat (NV-3) is still 4.2% (Biden +6.6) to the left of the state (Biden +2.4). Laxalt +1-2 and 3 Dem house wins is possible.

[Calthrina950]

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.

[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.

[MRS DONNA SHALALA]

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.

Well yeah, we're Democrats, and a lot of us are members of classes (LGBTQ+, minorities, etc) that Republicans actively despise and want to discriminate against. Of course we're going to be worried if they look like they're taking the upper hand, and of course some us will look for reasons it might not be true. Just because you've decided to be a weird emotionally-disaffected robot doesn't make you somehow superior.

Granted, this is a polling analysis forum, so if you see a flaw in someone's data or analysis you can feel free to rebut with your own argument. But you've popped up every time someone espouses a vaguely left-wing view of a bit of data with a self-satisfied "you're going to be sooooo embarrassed when you're wrong," and people are rightly calling you out on it.

[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?

[It’s so Joever]

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.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Wow at this rate I may not be the most annoying CO avatar soon

Good post, this made me LOL.

[South Dakota Democrat]

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.

k