I will say I noticed a couple days ago on Reddit(zero clue the method used tho) that Iowa was the ONLY outlier among Early Voting/Mail In Voting results. All the blue states had blue leanings, all the red states had red leanings, swing states were split: Rust Belt Blue, Sun Belt Red, except for Georgia which was too close to call due to their lack of transparency and overall closeness. Iowa was more blue thanks to early voting. Only outlier.
On the one hand, this poll suggests that wasn’t an outlier. It FEELS weird because Iowa was considered the right most of the ‘weak red’ bloc, Florida and Ohio and Texas were discussed WAY more as potential pickups and got way more polling, Iowa got the least attention of them.
However I also note on the other hand the early voting data suggests Iowa is an outlier and this isn’t suggestive of a Kamala sweep. This could be because-
- Iowa has some of the harshest Anti-Abortion laws in the country and isn’t deep deep red like the comparable ones. That’s on the ballot.
- Iowa is right next to Minnesota and Tim Walz is jacking up the numbers, Iowa is old white country and Tim Walz is perfect for that.
- RFK Jr couldn’t get off the ballot in Iowa and there isn’t a strong left wing 3rd Party outside the norm like Claudia or Cornel to counterbalance either. Ohio/Texas/Florida don’t have RFK on the ballot and neither do most of the swing states, and the Rust Belt has those other two to counterweight it.
- Due to the lack of Democrat investment that Ohio and Texas and Florida saw there was also less Republican counter investment, so it trickled left and both sides missed it with so little polling there.
If you think Iowa indicates that nationwide trends are super wrong then you also have to ignore the early voting data that hinted at a bluer Iowa days ago because everything else on that chart is falling to expectation. That data still has Texas/Florida/Ohio Red and suggests the sun belt is going Red outside of maaaaaaybe Georgia which is tight. There are also a few other Iowa polls all showing it still safely red so it could just be super close/future swing state rather than blue this time.
Maybe it is a nationwide trend, maybe it is, but my gut says it’s a mix of lack of red investment and lack of blue polling interest as it wasn’t as seemingly close as places like Florida or Texas, and two huge Iowa specific factors being extreme anti-abortion laws nearly unrivaled nationally and Tim Walz being from right next door and appealing to the Iowa bloc massively.
What it would signal otherwise is that Tim Walz is doing a great job shoring up the white vote in the Rust Belt and that probably secures Wisconsin which ALSO borders Minnesota and has a lot of the same factors as Iowa. The early voting data says they’re losing the Sun Belt so they need to hold the Rust Belt. Iowa going blue and everything else going to plan would funnily enough make Nevada actually matter again. They’re both worth 6 points so Nevada going red(which otherwise was useless in basically any scenario, Republicans would either win without it or NV wouldn’t save them otherwise) would neutralize Iowa being lost and turn a couple scenarios from narrow losses to narrow wins.
HOWEVER, I also heed a potential warning sign here. If the Democrats can flip a weak red state(‘weak’, 7 and a half points last time and polling 10 point average prior to this) or even come close, while still losing the Sun Belt(which is what the early voting data points to, and that hinted at Iowa days before this. It’s a bit more blue than final, but way less than 2020, same with election day in reverse) what’s stopping the reverse happening on Election Day(when the republicans are stronger)?
Like, New Mexico or Virginia or New Hampshire or something. If fucking Iowa can go competitive out of nowhere due to a combination of local factors and being ignored by the main party as safe, whilst Sunbelt swingstates hold red(IE: No huge nationwide shift, this is more regional), the reverse is perfectly plausible too. New Mexico is a border state with a ton of overlap with Arizona which has swung to the reddest swing state, Virginia has the most Anti-Democrat third party spread in the entire country(All the left wingers made it and the Libertarians are more left than usual, but no RFK and no Cornell West/Constitution Party to counterbalance) and went more red than expected in 2021. Neither of them have Abortion on the ballot.
Not to fearmonger or anything ,the Iowa data is great news for the Democrats, just, keep this is mind. This year has been an utter rollercoaster of surprises, both sides have been ‘guaranteed’ to win like 3 times each at this point and something else pops up. Iowa going blue only to be undone by Virginia going red wouldn’t surprise me at this point with what a psychotic roller coaster of an election it’s been.
(Note: I checked this. Virginia is solid blue like just Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and New Mexico is a weaker blue like Michigan, but New Hampshire is as tight as Iowa is and is tight enough it’s meeting the definition for Swing State in polling as of late. Imagine a scenario where Trump loses the Rust Belt badly and suffers massive decline in Iowa, but manages to hold Iowa and pick up New Hampshire. That’s 272-266 for Trump)
Going into next election with two extra swing states is kinda cool tho I guess. Maybe all that rhetoric about changing how primaries and causcuses work and killing their first dibs thing as of late scared em and now they gotta be too important to risk pissing off again so they’re turning themselves into swing states. Not an actual theory, but then again, those are THE two early states…hmmmm…crackpot time
I’m trying not to get too excited about a Trump defeat before it happens. But yes to all you said.
It IS a good sign for Harris, but like I said, trying to interpret this nation wide is a bad move. If you did the same thing for Nevada(bluest swing state in 2016 only one Hillary held, second bluest in 2020 only behind Michigan) which is by far the reddest in Early Voting you’d assume Harris was about to get red waved.
All this truly tells us is that the North and Great Lakes region is getting bluer and the Sunbelt is getting redder. Iowa was the reddest of the 4/5 weak red states(People thought Alaska was more gettable than it) and now it might be the bluest. Nevada was the bluest swing state until a month ago and it’s suddenly on track to be the reddest. Arizona was the tightest swing state and now it’s gone hard red, Georgia was safe red until it was dead tight. Trends can break locally without nessacrily indicating a nation swing. Like I said, if you used the ‘Iowa going blue/being close means Kamala sweeps everything’ argument for Nevada you’d be dooming hard.
The early voting data suggests Iowa is alone in this at least on the blue side, and it’s narrow enough the red favored election day would likely take it back. It’s actually about as blue as New Hampshire which…is either a good thing or a bad thing depending on how you expect election day to turnout. (both are less blue percentage wise than the rust belt swing states and both would be swing states by their current ratios if it wasn’t too late to add them).
Was this the same poll that screwed over Bernie because he was winning?
Unfortunately another poll released yesterday by Emerson shows Trump up by 9% in Iowa. Let’s not get our hopes up too much for that state.
It’s not about winning Iowa so much as it is a reflection of national climate. Though Selzer is historically far more accurate than Emerson.
Here’s a comment about why Selzer is a standout in the context of Trump’s previous elections.
Here’s my comment on the same thread which includes [Nate Silver’s writeup] (https://www.natesilver.net/p/theres-more-herding-in-swing-state) on why other pollsters are less reliable right now due to herding. Emerson is the second worst herder on his list.
Now I agree, it seems rather unlikely she wins Iowa. Selzer’s numbers leave room for a narrow Harris loss. I just wanted to provide context on why this poll is vastly more significant than Emerson’s. If she hasn’t made a massive mistake, the national climate is much more Harris friendly than it feels. I won’t let myself be optimistic over this, but it makes it a lot harder to be pessimistic.
Another data point yesterday was University of Miami (Ohio) poll of Ohio showing Trump+3 in Ohio. It’s not as extreme a swing as the Selzer Iowa poll but it’s a significant shift from 2016, 2020 and much of the polling this cycle.
So while the Selzer poll is out on a bit of an island, the Miami-Ohio poll certainly shows a similar swing.
I’m inclined towards pessimism, but it’s hard not to feel there’s some significant herding happening, and that the averages are being affected by it as well as some low quality pollsters flooding the data with polls
Frick it here’s my prediction. SOMEHOW…the original swing states returned.Wait, it is all red
always has been
F Polls. All they are at this point is an attempt to get you to not bother voting. Vote even if your candidate is up by 20 points because it isn’t just about the count it is also about the margin needed to overcome legal BS.
While true, it’s good to have some hope now and then, too. We don’t want people getting too depressed, either.
The new Iowa Poll shows Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump by 3 points.
Margin of error: plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.
So at the absolute highest margin of error, Trump has a very small lead. Conversely the same could be true in the other direction and it could be 6.4 points ahead.
Fund American schools… (and defund the church)
Better yet: start investigating the southern baptist church for its decades of hiding rampant sexual abuse in ways that massively dwarf the catholic church.
Yes! Tax the churches. There’s no reason for the Mormon church to have so many investment assets. You want to talk about BlackRock buying up houses? What about the Mormon church, tax free? What about artifacts, artwork? It’s fucking criminal.
