8 Comments

By the way, the Selzer polling folks in Iowa did their estimation of the likely voters in a very different way than other pollsters: they made use of the actual distribution in the population, updated by who either actually voted this election (early) and those who said they definitely would be voting. They made no use of modeling of past distributions (over age, race, gender etc), which may be biasing the other polls. So while it's only one poll and you still have to have the usual caveats, I think that the Iowa poll (showing Harris ahead in a supposedly reliably red state) is telling us something real.

Expand full comment

That's awesome. I was hoping that would be the case!

Expand full comment

I wondered about this so I wrote them the other day and they pointed me to more details. So I am reasonably confident that I'm not misinterpreting it. I had also written a blog post a few weeks ago about one of the points you made here, the source of poll inaccuracies due to these model-based weightings; it's at https://blogforarizona.net/polling-trends-have-you-worried-dont-be/

Expand full comment

Sweet! Will read now!

Expand full comment

Antonia, if you can stand it, some of us followers need to hear from you on Wednesday. So much pain tonight.

Expand full comment

Being from Iowa, I wrote about this in my substack.

If Ann Selzer’s poll accurately predicts the outcome of the November 5 vote, several additional observations come to mind, drawing from insights I gained during recent Zoom sessions with Selzer herself. I have attributed Iowa polling trends primarily to:

1. dissatisfaction with Republican policies on abortion;

2. private school vouchers;

3. inaction on eminent domain protections related to carbon pipelines; and

4. discontent among older Iowans with Trump (Social Security ) and our Governor, namely: the persistent issues with Iowa's nursing homes.

The Iowa Capital Dispatch has been consistently reporting on serious nursing home mismanagement—and, in some cases, possible malfeasance—in certain facilities, while Iowa commentators critique the lack of government oversight.

These are a combination of state and national issues driving people to vote up the ballot for Harris.

Altogether, this vote offers Iowans a chance to signal their objections to these issues and voice their opinion on our Republican-led state government’s response.

This was the title of my substack-- Is Iowa now 'The First State in the Nation' to upturn assumptions about Trump support?

Expand full comment

Thanks! Super interesting!

Expand full comment

I once read a pop psychology study about people standing in line and whether they thought they would get into an event based on a limited number of seats. The study found that those ahead of the cut off line were reasonably accurate in predicting their chances of getting in. Those after the cut off line were wildly optimistic. I don't hear wild optimism on the left, just good assessments like yours. Maybe that's a good sign.

I also do a driving poll. My car is covered with hand written Harris signs: Harris, No fear! No Hate! Decency! Freedom! I drove from MN to GA. In WI I got 15 thumbs up on the freeway and 3 thumbs down. In IL, TN, KT, and GA it was relatively quiet. In a voodoo way, I attribute this to voter turn our and enthusiasm or exhaustion with Trump. Driving the back roads of rural GA this weekend, I saw quite a few Trump signs but also Harris signs. GA will be very close. I'm saying WI will go for Harris. I hear Iowa is in play. Not scientific at all, just gut.

Expand full comment