The talk has changed from "a blue wave" to how high that wave will be to "a blue flood."
Which I’d say is unhelpful over-confident talk. Chickens should never be counted until they’ve hatched. Sometimes I think Democrats have raised unrealistically getting our hopes up to an art form.
Yes, it more likely than not that it will be a blue wave. And a “blue flood” is a possibility, but it is far from a given. Even assuming there aren’t significant polling errors, most of the polls that give rise to the idea of the “blue flood” show the Democratic candidate ahead numbers within the margin of error.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see a blue flood. But there are so many things that would have to go exactly right for that to happen. Better, I think, to keep my hopes realistic and be happily surprised than to be disappointed because unrealistic expectations weren’t met.
You also wanna keep the Democratic electorate in a state of sufficient panic to ensure they get to the polls, while also not doom-mongering to the point where they decide it's useless to vote. The flood vs. tsunami debate is decidedly unhelpful for the former goal.
You also wanna keep the Democratic electorate in a state of sufficient panic to ensure they get to the polls, while also not doom-mongering to the point where they decide it's useless to vote. The flood vs. tsunami debate is decidedly unhelpful for the former goal.
Actually, I don't think it matters that much. The people who pay attention to wave/tsunami/whatever discussion are very likely to vote no matter what.
You also wanna keep the Democratic electorate in a state of sufficient panic to ensure they get to the polls, while also not doom-mongering to the point where they decide it's useless to vote. The flood vs. tsunami debate is decidedly unhelpful for the former goal.
Actually, I don't think it matters that much. The people who pay attention to wave/tsunami/whatever discussion are very likely to vote no matter what.
You also wanna keep the Democratic electorate in a state of sufficient panic to ensure they get to the polls, while also not doom-mongering to the point where they decide it's useless to vote. The flood vs. tsunami debate is decidedly unhelpful for the former goal.
Actually, I don't think it matters that much. The people who pay attention to wave/tsunami/whatever discussion are very likely to vote no matter what.
Yeah, if we're talking about political junkies who are hooked into the wave vs. tsunami discussuion. Who I'd be more worried about are the habitually apolitical but at least temporarily anti-Trump couch potatoes, who might pick up "Republicans are gonna lose no matter what!" as background chatter, partly fed by the oceanographical debate, and behave accordingly.
I'm pretty sure I've heard it argued that Leave won the brexit vote in part because some Remainers assumed Remain had it in the bag and stayed home. More personally, I listened to an American in 2004 tell his wife that it didn't matter whether he voted, because Kerry was sure to win even without him(*).
That's hardly scientific, obviously, but to reason backwards from practice...
If I was a Democratic campaign worker canvassing identified supporters to vote on election day, and one of them says "I'm planning to head outta town to see my nephew, and anyway, the Democrats are guaranteed a sweep no matter what", my own personal response would be to try and rebut the person's optimism. Granted, how urgently I might deliver that rebuttal would likely vary according to the closeness of the race in that particular jurisdiction.
(*) FWIW, the guy WAS correct about his own state of Pennsylvania going for Kerry, though that state's currently more precarious position in the Democratic column might indicate the dangers of habituating your voters into a default state of optimism.
I will only rest easy if and when a new Congress with a Democratic majority in both houses is sworn in. We all know Trump and his gang will do everything they can think of to prevent such a thing from happening. This won't all be over in a few days. If we're fortunate it will all be over in early January.
100%. Everyone thought that 2016 would be an easy Democrat win.
Everyone thought that 2016 would be an easy Democrat win.
I wouldn't put it quite that way, though obviously some were too complacent. Lots of people I knew were on pins and needles, though it seemed unthinkable that we'd elect Trump. The forecasting models predicted Clinton would probably win, but the steady drumbeat of news pieces on her email server was unnerving. It didn't feel like it was going to be easy. I had found a deal on handles of liquor and started having a drink every night, reasoning that I just had to get through election season - the only time in my life I've drunk like that. I knew a people who were going to an election watch party at a place that does drag brunches and was encouraging women to wear white in honor of the suffragists, and I couldn't do it; by election day I had a bad feeling it was all going to go wrong.
But yeah, we mostly thought we just had to get past the election, and things would be okay after that. Famous last words.
I'm pretty sure I've heard it argued that Leave won the brexit vote in part because some Remainers assumed Remain had it in the bag and stayed home. More personally, I listened to an American in 2004 tell his wife that it didn't matter whether he voted, because Kerry was sure to win even without him(*).
I recall very clearly hearing Farage say late on the Brexit voting day that the cause was lost, so there was no point in voting - a transparently cynical and successful ploy. As soon as I heard that I was pretty sure I knew what was coming next.
I'm pretty sure I've heard it argued that Leave won the brexit vote in part because some Remainers assumed Remain had it in the bag and stayed home. More personally, I listened to an American in 2004 tell his wife that it didn't matter whether he voted, because Kerry was sure to win even without him(*).
I recall very clearly hearing Farage say late on the Brexit voting day that the cause was lost, so there was no point in voting - a transparently cynical and successful ploy. As soon as I heard that I was pretty sure I knew what was coming next.
That's very faintly coming back to me now.
While I'm sure Farage did a fairly realistic impersonation of someone who truly believed his own cause to be doomed, I'd really like to interrogate some of the Remainers who got taken in.
So WHICH trustworthy source told you it was all over and voting was pointless?
Voted this evening. Washington state is considered a vote by mail state, although we are being advised to use county auditor receptacles this year.
We had three major initiatives to consider
1. Eliminate the proposed 9.9% tax on anyone making more than a million dollars.
2. Pass stronger parental rights measures concerning public schools.
3. Require those participating in female sports.
I'm pretty sure I've heard it argued that Leave won the brexit vote in part because some Remainers assumed Remain had it in the bag and stayed home. More personally, I listened to an American in 2004 tell his wife that it didn't matter whether he voted, because Kerry was sure to win even without him(*).
I recall very clearly hearing Farage say late on the Brexit voting day that the cause was lost, so there was no point in voting - a transparently cynical and successful ploy. As soon as I heard that I was pretty sure I knew what was coming next.
That's very faintly coming back to me now.
While I'm sure Farage did a fairly realistic impersonation of someone who truly believed his own cause to be doomed, I'd really like to interrogate some of the Remainers who got taken in.
So WHICH trustworthy source told you it was all over and voting was pointless?
I recall someone being interviewed who said that she'd voted Leave as a protest vote, but didn't actually want to Leave. She was horrified by the result.
Michigan congresswoman Haley Stevens, who missed out on the party's Senate nomination in the state to Abdul El-Sayed, endorsed Republican rival Mike Rogers.
Sour grapes? At any rate that might have an impact on a close race, with El-Sayed marginally leading.
Plus the signs are there that the Trump administration will do their utmost to delay and disable results if not in the GOP favour.
Michigan congresswoman Haley Stevens, who missed out on the party's Senate nomination in the state to Abdul El-Sayed, endorsed Republican rival Mike Rogers.
Sour grapes? At any rate that might have an impact on a close race, with El-Sayed marginally leading.
I doubt it. For one thing, lots of people had already voted. And at this stage, voters who haven’t made up their minds already aren’t likely to vote at all. The voters it would have to matter to is those already planning to vote for El-Sayed, and I doubt Stevens’ endorsement matters to many of those voters. I think it’s more likely to piss Democrats off than to persuade any of voters to change their minds.
New York Times projects 11 Senate seats could flip. One for the Republicans and 10 for the Democrats. Not quite close for a supermajority, though. This was behind a paywall so cannot give you a correct link. I just caught the headlines in Google News, this morning.
New York Times projects 11 Senate seats could flip. One for the Republicans and 10 for the Democrats. Not quite close for a supermajority, though. This was behind a paywall so cannot give you a correct link. I just caught the headlines in Google News, this morning.
I don’t think the NYT has “projected” that 11 Senate could flip. I can find no such story there, and I seriously doubt the NYT or deny other reputable news outlet is “projecting” anything at this point.
Do you mean CNN’s story’s “The top 11 Senate seats most likely to flip, the day before the midterms”? Note in that headline the difference between “most likely to flip” and “projected to flip.” That article is behind a paywall.
I am an early voting person in the US..YES,many did vote early. But polls can be deceiving , polls can’t also be trusted.
In Britain at any rate, we have, or possibly used to have, the “Quiet Tory” voter, which was used to explain polls that underestimated the Tory vote. I seem to remember this was also the case for the “Leave” vote at the Brexit referendum. Maybe it’s a right wing thing.
People who make serious predictions based on polls have models for these kinds of effects, so as long as the "shy Tories" or whoever remain similarly shy, they can account for them. When the fraction of people who are shamed to admit their true voting intentions to a pollster changes significantly, it's much harder to model.
Meanwhile, Trump made his closing midterm pitch in a speech at the Reflecting Pool today. At least, that’s what he said he was going to be doing. He spent over 20 minutes of the almost-an-hour long speech talking about the Reflecting Pool and his renovations to it, the imaginary vandalism and other “renovation” projects in DC.
In the bits of the speech I’ve seen, when he actually talked about the midterms, he was noticeably unenergetic. Maybe it was just not having a crowd to play off of, but he seemed to be reading without even thinking about what he was reading, with a pretty flat affect.
It was kind of bizarre, even by Trump standards of baseline bizarreness.
Meanwhile, Trump made his closing midterm pitch in a speech at the Reflecting Pool today. At least, that’s what he said he was going to be doing. He spent over 20 minutes of the almost-an-hour long speech talking about the Reflecting Pool and his renovations to it, the imaginary vandalism and other “renovation” projects in DC.
As I've observed before, Trump really seems to think he's governing in an era of perceived prosperity.
The return to the Reflecting Pool was very strange. A criminal returning to the scene of the crime? A master class in distraction? His barely coherent speeches over the last few days suggest that the deterioration of his mind is accelerating.
And in other news, the Supreme Court, with what I think was remarkable speed and with no noted dissents, has rejected Trump’s efforts to have it order California to set aside 20,000+ ballots. They didn’t even direct California to respond, they just said “no” in a matter of hours after USDOJ filed its petition.
I can’t help but wonder whether this should be read as a signal of the Court’s unwillingness to play along with Trump’s efforts to question the election.
And in other news, the Supreme Court, with what I think was remarkable speed and with no noted dissents,
Like United States v. Nixon.
I can’t help but wonder whether this should be read as a signal of the Court’s unwillingness to play along with Trump’s efforts to question the election.
Well, we can probably assume that all the 9 judges agree with the decision on principle, regardless of any intention to telegraph an opinion on future challenges. FWIW, my guess is there are at least two judges among The Six who'd be open to hearing more arguments from Trump on the topic of electoral fraud by Democrats, but I can also think of at least one from the anti-VRA majority who's probably a sincere believer in a state's absolute right to run its own elections, regardless of which party benefits from the assertion of that right in a given contest.
FiftyPlusOne’s final summary is worth a read and you can get it from a free subscription.
The gist is that late polls are suggesting a further shift in favour of the Democrats. Their final summary is that the Dems have a 79% chance of winning both the House and the Senate.
I always look at Bookmakers odds and they look like 4/11 in favour of the Democrats getting both (I think that’s 11/4 on in UK term). An £11 bet would win you £4 plus your stake money if you win.
@Nick. I know what I saw. It was an early morning headline.
CNN has a headline that says "The top 11 Senate seats most likely to flip." I don't subscribe to CNN, so I can't read it. I do subscribe to the NY Times and have checked in there far too many times the last few days - they have no such piece.
In Britain at any rate, we have, or possibly used to have, the “Quiet Tory” voter, which was used to explain polls that underestimated the Tory vote. I seem to remember this was also the case for the “Leave” vote at the Brexit referendum. Maybe it’s a right wing thing.
People who make serious predictions based on polls have models for these kinds of effects, so as long as the "shy Tories" or whoever remain similarly shy, they can account for them. When the fraction of people who are shamed to admit their true voting intentions to a pollster changes significantly, it's much harder to model.
They can try to account for them, but US pollsters face several problems. Rural Republicans are significantly less likely to respond to polls than Democrats and urban and suburban Republicans. Trying to figure out how much to weigh the responses of the ones who do answer questions is hard because it's hard to know how many of them will vote. Trying to figure out whether 2024 Trump voters will stick with the Republican party in the 2026 midterm races is hard because some folks who voted for him and now feel betrayed will lie to pollsters about their 2024 vote, and some will honestly mis-remember who they voted for - so they won't show up in current polls as Trump 2024 voters, thus possibly skewing the models. There's also the potential for over-weighting Trump voters, if pollsters use the 2024 electorate as a model for 2026.
The potential bias in favour of the Dems? Apparently mid terms are different. Pollsters know about it and apparently some make some kind of an adjustment.
FiftyPlusOne has qualified its aggregated findings with the recognition that the predictions should be qualified by the potential bias. If it’s about 3-4% in the key marginals then the GOP will keep the Senate. But will still lose the House.
Not too long now. As a very good friend of mine has put it, there are times when we pray with our fingers crossed!
Apologies if this has been asked (and answered) previously, but when will the results be known?
In UK time, some time tonight for many. BBC Radio 4 has a special programme from 11,00 p.m. to 5.00 a.m. BBC1 television has programmes from 11.30 p.m. to 6.00 a.m.
It will vary! The Alaska results may not be known for weeks because of the voting system. There may be recounts under laws about winning margins. And where results are officially declared, legal challenges may cause further delay.
I think they have all got to be ratified by the House and/or the Senate early in January. If the results go as predicted, the extent to which this becomes another political battleground will give a pointer to Trump’s remaining power.
Once ratification was a formality. That is no longer guaranteed.
What @Barnabas62 said. Each state runs its own elections and has its own systems and dynamics, as well as differing legal requirements, such as whether mail-in ballots must be received by Election Day, or whether mail-in ballots must be postmarked by Election Day and received by some later date.
All the various things that vary from state to state mean that some states count votes relatively quickly while others take longer. For some states, most if not all results will be known tonight or tomorrow (bearing in mind the time zones covered by the US). If it is a big night for Democrats, that should be apparent relatively soon, and the remaining question will be how big. If it turns out not to be as big a night for Democrats as many predict or hope, it may take longer to see exactly how it all shakes out.
@Bishops Finger, assuming you mean the Senate toss-up states. First, don't put too much stock in the early vote -- it will tend to over-represent Democrats this year, so don't get your hopes up based on early returns. Much of the following is cribbed from the NY Times, which has a far too long piece on how the night will go. "Midnight" = midnight on the US east coast.
Iowa, Kansas, Ohio and Texas should be pretty far along by midnight.
In Maine, the rural areas count slowly. If it's close, there won't be an answer for a few days. If it's not close, we'll have a good idea by midnight.
Michigan counts on the slow side and might only be halfway done by midnight, with the finish coming sometime Wednesday.
Alaska's counts slowly and has ranked-choice voting, plus they're very far west -- their polls close at midnight. If no one gets 50%, the result of the ranked-choice voting process will come out Nov. 18.
If you're totally geeky about this: Kentucky and Indiana close the polls on the early side, and Florida counts fast. You can look at how these are going to get a feel for how things are going. If Democrats are winning toss-up House seats or out-performing expectations even if they lose in these states, it's a good sign.
If I were a sensible person living in the UK or Europe, I'd go to bed at a decent hour and check the news Wednesday morning. I am however a not-sensible person living on the US west coast where the east-coast midnight is only 9 pm, so I'll be checking the news all evening and will no doubt stay up too late. My partner and I have tentative plans to go out for Taco Tuesday, and I thought of proposing that the first person at the table who checks their phone has to pick up the check -- but that would definitely be me.
I've tried Googling, but without success, so please excuse what is possibly an ignorant question - is exit polling much of a thing in the US? How accurate is it?
I've tried Googling, but without success, so please excuse what is possibly an ignorant question - is exit polling much of a thing in the US? How accurate is it?
Exit polling is more accurate than pre-election polls because they are asking how voters voted. When the race is a blowout, exit polls usually identify the winner early, but when the race is close a small polling error can be misleading--an example would be Bush v Gore. Most polls called it for Gore. Florida proved them wrong. Clinton v Trump was also close as I recall.
I've tried Googling, but without success, so please excuse what is possibly an ignorant question - is exit polling much of a thing in the US? How accurate is it?
It is very much a thing, but news organizations don't release numbers for any given state until the polls have closed there. It tends to be focused on issues and demographics; they want to know who voted and what's motivating people. NBC will start putting out exit poll info in 5 hours (8 pm eastern) here.
I've tried Googling, but without success, so please excuse what is possibly an ignorant question - is exit polling much of a thing in the US? How accurate is it?
It is very much a thing, but news organizations don't release numbers for any given state until the polls have closed there. It tends to be focused on issues and demographics; they want to know who voted and what's motivating people. NBC will start putting out exit poll info in 5 hours (8 pm eastern) here.
This, but I don’t think it’s as much of a thing as it used to be, at least in terms of projecting winners. Some major news outlets, including the New York Times, do not rely on exit polling.
Exit polls — surveys of voters taken immediately after they exit their polling stations — have long been a hallmark of election coverage. Now they rely heavily on pre-election polling. While exit polls are popular on TV and social media, The Times does not generally rely on them in our reporting of the election.
The primary reason is that exit polls, in general have a poor track record. They have contributed to misleading narratives on election night, including in 2016 when exit polls of the presidential race showed Hillary Clinton ahead of Donald J. Trump. Later, they showed a majority of white women voting for Mr. Trump. Both of those things proved to be untrue.
Our search for a better way to know as much about an election as possible led to the creation of Times Voter Trends, a project that will break down estimates for the results of U.S. House and Senate elections by age, race, education and gender in every state in the country. We will report our preliminary findings late on election night, and will update them as more data arrives.
I'm pretty sure I've heard it argued that Leave won the brexit vote in part because some Remainers assumed Remain had it in the bag and stayed home. More personally, I listened to an American in 2004 tell his wife that it didn't matter whether he voted, because Kerry was sure to win even without him(*).
I recall very clearly hearing Farage say late on the Brexit voting day that the cause was lost, so there was no point in voting - a transparently cynical and successful ploy. As soon as I heard that I was pretty sure I knew what was coming next.
I just saw a Meidas Touch headline along the lines of:
REPUBLICAN ANALYSTS ALREADY IN DESPAIR ABOUT ELECTION RESULTS
I'm pretty sure I've heard it argued that Leave won the brexit vote in part because some Remainers assumed Remain had it in the bag and stayed home. More personally, I listened to an American in 2004 tell his wife that it didn't matter whether he voted, because Kerry was sure to win even without him(*).
I recall very clearly hearing Farage say late on the Brexit voting day that the cause was lost, so there was no point in voting - a transparently cynical and successful ploy. As soon as I heard that I was pretty sure I knew what was coming next.
I just saw a Meidas Touch headline along the lines of:
REPUBLICAN ANALYSTS ALREADY IN DESPAIR ABOUT ELECTION RESULTS
@stetson, Meidas Touch is a progressive organization. What are you saying they're trying to encourage?
I think they're trying encourage enthusiasm among Democrats, but as I have argued on this thread, I think maximizing enthusiasm can be counter-productive.
The Guardian is reporting that Florida Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been re-elected to the House, and Virginia Democrat Mark Warner has been re-elected to the Senate.
Comments
You also wanna keep the Democratic electorate in a state of sufficient panic to ensure they get to the polls, while also not doom-mongering to the point where they decide it's useless to vote. The flood vs. tsunami debate is decidedly unhelpful for the former goal.
Actually, I don't think it matters that much. The people who pay attention to wave/tsunami/whatever discussion are very likely to vote no matter what.
Well, I have heard at least one
Yeah, if we're talking about political junkies who are hooked into the wave vs. tsunami discussuion. Who I'd be more worried about are the habitually apolitical but at least temporarily anti-Trump couch potatoes, who might pick up "Republicans are gonna lose no matter what!" as background chatter, partly fed by the oceanographical debate, and behave accordingly.
I'm pretty sure I've heard it argued that Leave won the brexit vote in part because some Remainers assumed Remain had it in the bag and stayed home. More personally, I listened to an American in 2004 tell his wife that it didn't matter whether he voted, because Kerry was sure to win even without him(*).
That's hardly scientific, obviously, but to reason backwards from practice...
If I was a Democratic campaign worker canvassing identified supporters to vote on election day, and one of them says "I'm planning to head outta town to see my nephew, and anyway, the Democrats are guaranteed a sweep no matter what", my own personal response would be to try and rebut the person's optimism. Granted, how urgently I might deliver that rebuttal would likely vary according to the closeness of the race in that particular jurisdiction.
(*) FWIW, the guy WAS correct about his own state of Pennsylvania going for Kerry, though that state's currently more precarious position in the Democratic column might indicate the dangers of habituating your voters into a default state of optimism.
100%. Everyone thought that 2016 would be an easy Democrat win.
I wouldn't put it quite that way, though obviously some were too complacent. Lots of people I knew were on pins and needles, though it seemed unthinkable that we'd elect Trump. The forecasting models predicted Clinton would probably win, but the steady drumbeat of news pieces on her email server was unnerving. It didn't feel like it was going to be easy. I had found a deal on handles of liquor and started having a drink every night, reasoning that I just had to get through election season - the only time in my life I've drunk like that. I knew a people who were going to an election watch party at a place that does drag brunches and was encouraging women to wear white in honor of the suffragists, and I couldn't do it; by election day I had a bad feeling it was all going to go wrong.
But yeah, we mostly thought we just had to get past the election, and things would be okay after that. Famous last words.
I recall very clearly hearing Farage say late on the Brexit voting day that the cause was lost, so there was no point in voting - a transparently cynical and successful ploy. As soon as I heard that I was pretty sure I knew what was coming next.
That's very faintly coming back to me now.
While I'm sure Farage did a fairly realistic impersonation of someone who truly believed his own cause to be doomed, I'd really like to interrogate some of the Remainers who got taken in.
So WHICH trustworthy source told you it was all over and voting was pointless?
We had three major initiatives to consider
1. Eliminate the proposed 9.9% tax on anyone making more than a million dollars.
2. Pass stronger parental rights measures concerning public schools.
3. Require those participating in female sports.
Voted no on all three.
I recall someone being interviewed who said that she'd voted Leave as a protest vote, but didn't actually want to Leave. She was horrified by the result.
Sour grapes? At any rate that might have an impact on a close race, with El-Sayed marginally leading.
Plus the signs are there that the Trump administration will do their utmost to delay and disable results if not in the GOP favour.
I’m with @Ruth re uncertainties.
I assume the right wing grift circuit awaits. If it works for 5th placed swimmers it can work for failed wannabe senator candidates.
Do you mean CNN’s story’s “The top 11 Senate seats most likely to flip, the day before the midterms”? Note in that headline the difference between “most likely to flip” and “projected to flip.” That article is behind a paywall.
I would recommend this NYT article by Nate Cohn: “The Final Polls Show a Blue Surge. Can We Trust Them?” It should be a free link.
99% of the time, Democrats win the House
77% of the time Democrats win the Senate.
Well, we’ll know soon.
People who make serious predictions based on polls have models for these kinds of effects, so as long as the "shy Tories" or whoever remain similarly shy, they can account for them. When the fraction of people who are shamed to admit their true voting intentions to a pollster changes significantly, it's much harder to model.
In the bits of the speech I’ve seen, when he actually talked about the midterms, he was noticeably unenergetic. Maybe it was just not having a crowd to play off of, but he seemed to be reading without even thinking about what he was reading, with a pretty flat affect.
It was kind of bizarre, even by Trump standards of baseline bizarreness.
Stevens would jive well with the "I didn't leave my party, my party left me" schtick popular among left-wingers who flip rightward.
As I've observed before, Trump really seems to think he's governing in an era of perceived prosperity.
I can’t help but wonder whether this should be read as a signal of the Court’s unwillingness to play along with Trump’s efforts to question the election.
Like United States v. Nixon.
Well, we can probably assume that all the 9 judges agree with the decision on principle, regardless of any intention to telegraph an opinion on future challenges. FWIW, my guess is there are at least two judges among The Six who'd be open to hearing more arguments from Trump on the topic of electoral fraud by Democrats, but I can also think of at least one from the anti-VRA majority who's probably a sincere believer in a state's absolute right to run its own elections, regardless of which party benefits from the assertion of that right in a given contest.
The gist is that late polls are suggesting a further shift in favour of the Democrats. Their final summary is that the Dems have a 79% chance of winning both the House and the Senate.
I always look at Bookmakers odds and they look like 4/11 in favour of the Democrats getting both (I think that’s 11/4 on in UK term). An £11 bet would win you £4 plus your stake money if you win.
CNN has a headline that says "The top 11 Senate seats most likely to flip." I don't subscribe to CNN, so I can't read it. I do subscribe to the NY Times and have checked in there far too many times the last few days - they have no such piece.
They can try to account for them, but US pollsters face several problems. Rural Republicans are significantly less likely to respond to polls than Democrats and urban and suburban Republicans. Trying to figure out how much to weigh the responses of the ones who do answer questions is hard because it's hard to know how many of them will vote. Trying to figure out whether 2024 Trump voters will stick with the Republican party in the 2026 midterm races is hard because some folks who voted for him and now feel betrayed will lie to pollsters about their 2024 vote, and some will honestly mis-remember who they voted for - so they won't show up in current polls as Trump 2024 voters, thus possibly skewing the models. There's also the potential for over-weighting Trump voters, if pollsters use the 2024 electorate as a model for 2026.
FiftyPlusOne has qualified its aggregated findings with the recognition that the predictions should be qualified by the potential bias. If it’s about 3-4% in the key marginals then the GOP will keep the Senate. But will still lose the House.
Not too long now. As a very good friend of mine has put it, there are times when we pray with our fingers crossed!
In UK time, some time tonight for many. BBC Radio 4 has a special programme from 11,00 p.m. to 5.00 a.m. BBC1 television has programmes from 11.30 p.m. to 6.00 a.m.
I think they have all got to be ratified by the House and/or the Senate early in January. If the results go as predicted, the extent to which this becomes another political battleground will give a pointer to Trump’s remaining power.
Once ratification was a formality. That is no longer guaranteed.
All the various things that vary from state to state mean that some states count votes relatively quickly while others take longer. For some states, most if not all results will be known tonight or tomorrow (bearing in mind the time zones covered by the US). If it is a big night for Democrats, that should be apparent relatively soon, and the remaining question will be how big. If it turns out not to be as big a night for Democrats as many predict or hope, it may take longer to see exactly how it all shakes out.
Iowa, Kansas, Ohio and Texas should be pretty far along by midnight.
In Maine, the rural areas count slowly. If it's close, there won't be an answer for a few days. If it's not close, we'll have a good idea by midnight.
Michigan counts on the slow side and might only be halfway done by midnight, with the finish coming sometime Wednesday.
Alaska's counts slowly and has ranked-choice voting, plus they're very far west -- their polls close at midnight. If no one gets 50%, the result of the ranked-choice voting process will come out Nov. 18.
If you're totally geeky about this: Kentucky and Indiana close the polls on the early side, and Florida counts fast. You can look at how these are going to get a feel for how things are going. If Democrats are winning toss-up House seats or out-performing expectations even if they lose in these states, it's a good sign.
If I were a sensible person living in the UK or Europe, I'd go to bed at a decent hour and check the news Wednesday morning. I am however a not-sensible person living on the US west coast where the east-coast midnight is only 9 pm, so I'll be checking the news all evening and will no doubt stay up too late. My partner and I have tentative plans to go out for Taco Tuesday, and I thought of proposing that the first person at the table who checks their phone has to pick up the check -- but that would definitely be me.
Like many people, not only in the US but round the world, I hope very much that the results do NOT favour Trump...
Exit polling is more accurate than pre-election polls because they are asking how voters voted. When the race is a blowout, exit polls usually identify the winner early, but when the race is close a small polling error can be misleading--an example would be Bush v Gore. Most polls called it for Gore. Florida proved them wrong. Clinton v Trump was also close as I recall.
It is very much a thing, but news organizations don't release numbers for any given state until the polls have closed there. It tends to be focused on issues and demographics; they want to know who voted and what's motivating people. NBC will start putting out exit poll info in 5 hours (8 pm eastern) here.
I just saw a Meidas Touch headline along the lines of:
QED
I think they're trying encourage enthusiasm among Democrats, but as I have argued on this thread, I think maximizing enthusiasm can be counter-productive.
No problem. Your question made sense within the context of my post as well.
And I've also been wondering what @Stercus Tauri meant by "Which was to be proven" as a reply to my criticisn of Meidas.