Nevada-trafalagar- Laxalt +5

[Matty]

https://mobile.twitter.com/RobertCahaly/status/1589865409435795456

[soundchaser]

This simply doesn’t square with the current picture we have from the early vote. Laxalt could still win, but it would probably be by a narrow margin, nowhere near 5%. Really wish we could see the crosstabs on this.

[Matty]

This simply doesn’t square with the current picture we have from the early vote. Laxalt could still win, but it would probably be by a narrow margin, nowhere near 5%. Really wish we could see the crosstabs on this.

I’m not trying to be a dick, but what the hell are you talking about?

If Laxalt wins indies by the 8-10 most polling shows him doing, and if he wins slightly more Ds than she does Rs, a +4-5 result isn’t at all out of the question

The smallest lead he has had among indies was in the Suffolk poll at +5


The reason why Laxalt was ahead in Emerson, insider adv, D4p, etc is simple- it’s the same story in every poll

It’s not because dem turnout is low, it’s because indies are breaking his way

[AnOdyssey]

I can't believe an election denier is going to win by 5 points in Nevada.

[kwabbit]

Pollsters love hedging. If any pollster bought a CCM win from the early vote or from Ralston, I doubt Laxalt would be up in every poll conducted during the EV period.

[soundchaser]

Pollsters love hedging. If any pollster bought a CCM win from the early vote or from Ralston, I doubt Laxalt would be up in every poll conducted during the EV period.

I’m not sure this is true — otherwise they’d have hedged in 2010, 2016, and 2018 when the Early Vote showed inevitable Democratic victories in the Senate race.

As to Matty’s point: you’re right, Ralston’s model does suggest if Republicans get 5% crossover and win Indies by 10 points a 5% Laxalt result isn’t out of the question. My mistake. I don’t think it’s going to happen, and I don’t think it jives with the advantage the Dems have in Washoe at the moment, but I accept that it’s within the realm of possibility.

[Matty]

Pollsters love hedging. If any pollster bought a CCM win from the early vote or from Ralston, I doubt Laxalt would be up in every poll conducted during the EV period.

I’m not sure this is true — otherwise they’d have hedged in 2010, 2016, and 2018 when the Early Vote showed inevitable Democratic victories in the Senate race.

As to Matty’s point: you’re right, Ralston’s model does suggest if Republicans get 5% crossover and win Indies by 10 points a 5% Laxalt result isn’t out of the question. My mistake. I don’t think it’s going to happen, and I don’t think it jives with the advantage the Dems have in Washoe at the moment, but I accept that it’s within the realm of possibility.

I understand the polls have in the past underestimated dems in nv (though not in 2020), but this is now our third poll in a week showing Laxalt up at least 5

I think it is worth paying attention to

[kwabbit]

Pollsters love hedging. If any pollster bought a CCM win from the early vote or from Ralston, I doubt Laxalt would be up in every poll conducted during the EV period.

I’m not sure this is true — otherwise they’d have hedged in 2010, 2016, and 2018 when the Early Vote showed inevitable Democratic victories in the Senate race.

As to Matty’s point: you’re right, Ralston’s model does suggest if Republicans get 5% crossover and win Indies by 10 points a 5% Laxalt result isn’t out of the question. My mistake. I don’t think it’s going to happen, and I don’t think it jives with the advantage the Dems have in Washoe at the moment, but I accept that it’s within the realm of possibility.

One can easily argue they did. Emerson went from Heller +7 three weeks out to Rosen +5 right before the election, HarrisX went from Heller +1 three days out to Rosen +2 on the final day. They were the only pollsters to have polls before the EV period/Ralston prediction and after the EV period/Ralston prediction.

[MT Treasurer]

This is one of those races where people will look back and ask themselves why they ignored all the warning signs that the race would flip and that it wouldn’t be particularly close (incumbent's vote share in polling, state's tendency to reflect the national popular vote, demographics that were going to make the state the epicenter of a GOP wave under current party coalitions/in a midterm in which the trends observable in the last presidential election only tend to accelerate, generic Republican vs. generic Democrat contest, repeated signs and reports that pollsters were struggling to pick up the pace of the shift toward Republicans among non-white/non-Anglo working-class voters).

However, it made Ralston debase himself, so it was still worth it.

[Sir Mohamed]

Do I believe this race will be decided by a margin of 5 pts? Nah. Do I believe CCM is going to lose? Yup. My prediction is 49-46%.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yeah we should listen to Trafalgar and they had Zeldiin leading HOCHUL

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

With regards to the early vote, has anyone considered the possibility of a Democrats cannibalizing  a "relatively smaller pool" of voters overall with their early vote performance, meanwhile a greater proportion of Republicans have shifted to day of post 2020 stolen bs, thus exaggerating the EV lead comparatively speaking to what would be expected for Republican sweep of the state?

This would explain the early vote leads in a way that still comports with the polling data, the fundamentals and all of the other factors IndyRep discussed above.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

I can't believe an election denier is going to win by 5 points in Nevada.

Good thing they didn't!

[Minnesota Mike]

This simply doesn’t square with the current picture we have from the early vote. Laxalt could still win, but it would probably be by a narrow margin, nowhere near 5%. Really wish we could see the crosstabs on this.

I’m not trying to be a dick, but what the hell are you talking about?

If Laxalt wins indies by the 8-10 most polling shows him doing, and if he wins slightly more Ds than she does Rs, a +4-5 result isn’t at all out of the question

The smallest lead he has had among indies was in the Suffolk poll at +5


The reason why Laxalt was ahead in Emerson, insider adv, D4p, etc is simple- it’s the same story in every poll

It’s not because dem turnout is low, it’s because indies are breaking his way

We will know more Nevada SOS publishes the final turnout numbers by party but it is pretty obvious Republicans did not win independents by 10 points, they probably broke even or lost them slightly.

I think we are starting to see the effects of automatic voter registration in NV, young left leaning voters are automatically registered as non partisan unless they specify otherwise, this is making to the "other" pool in Nevada move to the left.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Worse poll ever along with Emerson Johnson and Laxalt plus 5

[GALeftist]

This is one of those races where people will look back and ask themselves why they ignored all the warning signs that the race would flip and that it wouldn’t be particularly close (incumbent's vote share in polling, state's tendency to reflect the national popular vote, demographics that were going to make the state the epicenter of a GOP wave under current party coalitions/in a midterm in which the trends observable in the last presidential election only tend to accelerate, generic Republican vs. generic Democrat contest, repeated signs and reports that pollsters were struggling to pick up the pace of the shift toward Republicans among non-white/non-Anglo working-class voters).

However, it made Ralston debase himself, so it was still worth it.

mm hmm

[South Dakota Democrat]

This simply doesn’t square with the current picture we have from the early vote. Laxalt could still win, but it would probably be by a narrow margin, nowhere near 5%. Really wish we could see the crosstabs on this.

I’m not trying to be a dick, but what the hell are you talking about?

If Laxalt wins indies by the 8-10 most polling shows him doing, and if he wins slightly more Ds than she does Rs, a +4-5 result isn’t at all out of the question

The smallest lead he has had among indies was in the Suffolk poll at +5


The reason why Laxalt was ahead in Emerson, insider adv, D4p, etc is simple- it’s the same story in every poll

It’s not because dem turnout is low, it’s because indies are breaking his way

[South Dakota Democrat]

This is one of those races where people will look back and ask themselves why they ignored all the warning signs that the race would flip and that it wouldn’t be particularly close (incumbent's vote share in polling, state's tendency to reflect the national popular vote, demographics that were going to make the state the epicenter of a GOP wave under current party coalitions/in a midterm in which the trends observable in the last presidential election only tend to accelerate, generic Republican vs. generic Democrat contest, repeated signs and reports that pollsters were struggling to pick up the pace of the shift toward Republicans among non-white/non-Anglo working-class voters).

However, it made Ralston debase himself, so it was still worth it.

[wbrocks67]

This simply doesn’t square with the current picture we have from the early vote. Laxalt could still win, but it would probably be by a narrow margin, nowhere near 5%. Really wish we could see the crosstabs on this.

I’m not trying to be a dick, but what the hell are you talking about?

If Laxalt wins indies by the 8-10 most polling shows him doing, and if he wins slightly more Ds than she does Rs, a +4-5 result isn’t at all out of the question

The smallest lead he has had among indies was in the Suffolk poll at +5


The reason why Laxalt was ahead in Emerson, insider adv, D4p, etc is simple- it’s the same story in every poll

It’s not because dem turnout is low, it’s because indies are breaking his way

Oop!