(This is basically the early voting data except swung slightly right to account for the right wing edge on election day. Iowa and New Hampshire are the weakest blue states and Georgia and North Carolina are the weakest red states in early voting right now. Yes this is insanely weird, but fuck it let’s follow this data off the cliff)

Frick it locking in, if the early voting data saw this coming days ago I’m not ignoring what else they have. My prediction. SOMEHOW, THE ORIGINAL SWING STATES RETURNED. WE CAME FOR THEIR FIRST IN LINE SPOTS AND THEY SAID “NO U”

Frick it here’s my prediction. SOMEHOW…the original swing states returned.

(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

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).

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.

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-

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

(Oh and RFK Jr couldn’t get off the ballot there, while he DID in Florida/Ohio/Texas. That’s another factor alongside Tim Walz and Draconic Abortion laws for why Iowa specifically)

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-

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

Nevada was also the bluest of the 7 swing states historically and yet is the reddest in early voting so…trends can swing. The bluest swing state is suddenly the reddest and the reddest of the 4 ‘weak red’ states is suddenly the bluest. Dems are strengthing their black and white women numbers while they bleed Arabs and Hispanic men.

It’s sickly funny in a way that the 268-270 SunBelt RustBelt scenario is probably the most likely Harris win scenario(it’s what the polls are predicting). Had a couple local politicians in Nebraska 2 months ago made a different choice and changed to Winner Take All that would be a 269-269 tie leading to a Trump win.

It’s also good to note 2008 being second highest was hard carried by Obama, McCain was not pulling record numbers. 2020 was both parties breaking their all time records(though proportionally they both fell a bit short of 2008 Obama). Personally I smell 2008 style numbers. Post-COVID means less people free that day and a bit less wall to wall election exposure, and while Harris is more charismatic than Biden she’s not Obama(Obama wasn’t even supposed to be picked in 2008, but he came in so hard and strong they gave him a shot and he mauled Hillary. Kamala wasn’t fighting her way through a primary she was never supposed to win in a trial by fire like Obama).

Also states have shifted in one way or another. Nevada was the bluest state in 2016 and 2020, only swing state to go blue both times, only one of the modern swing states Hillary held(albeit in 2016 Virginia and New Hampshire and New Mexico were considered Swing States too). This year it’s looking to be a lot more red…hopefully…if it’s still the bluest state that’s game over already. Abortion doesn’t sell well there, state is more male, and it’s mostly older so the women there aren’t super passionate. That and they got hit by COVID and Inflation really really badly and No Tax on Tips is popular. Meanwhile Wisconsin(traditionally the reddest of the rust belt) is being reigned in by Tim Walz to a degree and has been the bluest at several points while Michigan(the bluest state Trump won in 2016) is slipping a bit due to Arab voters.

Calling it being around 2008 Levels, but not 2020 level.

What do you predict Turnout being this year? 2020 was 65.9% of the VEP(Voting Eligable Population). The lowest in the internet era was 2012 at 58%. Average is 2004 and 2016 at 60.1 and 59.3 each, 2008 was the previous high at 61.1

Yes

Trump is at 46.7% baseline on 538. His TOTAL in 2020 was 46.8 and 46.1 in 2016. At the current rate it’ll be 46.8-47 by election day. The polls have been extremely good at predicting this baseline, it’s the undecided remainder they suck at guessing(Harris is at 48.1 right now) so Trump is pretty much guaranteed to get more of the Popular Vote then in 2016 or 2020.

With the current info on Undecideds, it’s lining up mostly with what I guessed based on what we knew about the locked in voters barring another polling disaster rendering all the data moot. Around 60% of the recent undecideds have broke for Harris, but the bulk of Undecideds who committed earlier broke for Trump (52-48) which is a larger number. These two average out to basically 50-50 on the whole. Undecideds went massively for Trump both previous elections so I don’t foresee Harris breaking 50%ish, that’s already a big gain.

This is relevant because the final locked in scores at the rate things are trending are going to be something like 47.5 - 49 give or take a half a point by election day. Not all of the 3-4 points left are going to either them, at least one, maybe 2 are going for Third Parties, which unlike in past years are way more left leaning than normal thanks mostly to RFK Jr and Libertarian infighting. Harris is trending in the right direction, but that 3rd party shift absorbs some of that. A final 50/50 call between what’s left leaves maybe a 2 point difference final result depending on exactly how well third parties do. 48-50 or so. That’s a Hilary Clinton sized margin between Popular Vote and EC. Not a death sentence, this thing is cyclical, sometimes it favors one party or another (Democrats had a EC advantage in 2004 and 2008 and probably 2012) and sometimes it’s stronger. The effect is supposed to be much less this year, a Biden level margin of 4 points or even a 3 point lead is a safe Kamala win. Not so much 2 points, that’s up in the margins.

If the polling is right, this is a dead heat election where Wisconsin and Michigan are going blue, Arizona Georgia and North Carolina going red, and Nevada and Pennsylvania are too close to call.

So yeah, when people ask how Trump could be doing this well despite stuff like COVID deaths or Harris’s gains, that’s my reasoning.

1. Significant gains in Libertarians who usually vote for the Libertarian Party
2. Notable gains with young men.
3. Marginal gains with Hispanic men
4. Democrat losses among older white men attached to Biden.

Landslide stomps get views too. They made a game of Reagan’s run in literally 1984 trying to predict if he could win all 50 states or not. (He fell one short).

Breaking the Libertarian Party as badly as it’s been broken(they’re polling like a quarter of what they did last time) is crucial in a way I don’t think people understand. That’s probably where a lot of the young men gains are coming from. They’re polling worse now then they got as final results last time. I don’t think it can be understated how bad that is, third parties are lucky to get half of what they see in polling. They’ll be heading to losing 75% support and most of the remaining 25% are going to be Leftist Libertarians who would probably break Democrat if they had to. The Hardliner Hoppeans and Rothbards are obviously going for Trump and a lot of the Moderates went to RFK Jr who in turn endorsed Trump.

That and the COVID deaths thing was always a bit overstated. Yes, more Republicans died. But like a third more. It’s like 44-56. Democrats tend to live in cities which aren’t exactly the safest places to be in a pandemic, had Trump not been a moron and just sold MAGA masks or something the democrats would have almost certainly been hit worse. That and some of those Republicans would have died anyway as they tend to be older. The actual net loss compared to usual 4 years is like a point or two, nothing monstrous. They’ve slipped with older white guys who Biden was running up the margins with, young guys are slipping, Hispanics are holding firm, it’s basically a race between that and the black and female gains.

Third Parties do not exist in a vacuum. I think way too many people have had their heads stuck in 2000 to realize this, they have trends that shift. Voting Third Party has helped democrats since at least 2008, and 2004 was pretty neutral. You could also argue it probably helped them in the 90s as Ross Perot was probably hurting Bush more so really 2000 was the odd one.

A lot of young voters don’t always realize these factors are not set in stone. The Electoral College helped Democrats more in 2004-2012, it just didn’t stick out because Obama was so absurdly popular it smothered it and Bush managed to hold onto Ohio by the skin of his teeth in 2004 preventing Kerry from winning via EC. Meanwhile 2000 went to the EC by basically a fluke(popular vote margin was the tightest ever of an election where it and the EC didn’t agree, winning margin was tightest ever period, butterfly ballot issue, Bush probably would have won New Mexico if they recounted there) and 2016 did come down to that so people focus on that and ignore 2004-2012.

Or Swing States. The USA doesn’t always have them at all, sometimes basically every state is up for grabs(See the 70s and 80s or the 30s and 40s), it depends on how divided by party line the country is at the time, it’s cyclical. And when there are Swing States they aren’t locked in, neither are solid states. California was a safe red state from the late 60s until the late 80s, then for about a decade it was considered a Swing State, and after 2000 it was considered a solid blue state. Virginia was a safe red state until 2004, then it was a swing state during Obama’s years and 2016 before being considered a solid blue state. Iowa and Ohio and New Hampshire were THE swing states for decades (hence their good spots in the Primaries) until they weren’t, two went safe red and one went safe blue. Sure, 2024 and 2020 are mostly the same(Florida is the only shift, it was considered a swing state in 2020 and safe red now), but 2016 had a ton of states up for grabs, and 2012 only had like 4 or 5(Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, and MAYBE Iowa?).

The Third Party votes have been hurting Republicans for years, just none of the elections were tight enough for it to have 2000 style effects. If America had ranked choice or run-off style ballots or simply no third parties allowed Trump would have won even harder in 2016, no third party means he carries the popular vote and gets an extra half a dozen states. Gary Johnson had 5 and a half percent of the vote and another 2 percent went to Evan McMullin, both right wingers, Plus another percent for the smaller right swing parties. Yeah Hillary would get the green vote, but say goodbye to New Hampshire, goodbye to New Mexico, goodbye to Minnesota. Even in 2020, in a world with no third parties Trump gets Georgia safely, probably gets Arizona, and Wisconsin is getting dangerously tight. He probably still loses, Wisconsin is highly unlikely to come up favorably, but still.

Now the script is flipped. Even in the states where Cornel and Claudia were gatekept, Green’s have their leading lady back and the Libertarians are infighting badly, Constitution Party is still weakened. Georgia was on the verge of a Hat Trick(No Constitution Party, but the Greens + PSL + Cornel) prior to them saying Cornel and Claudia’s votes wouldn’t count, Virginia HAS a hat trick(and while it’s considered a safe blue that that’s going to eat into the margins massively, don’t expect a 10 point win), and Wisconsin sorta has one, all the left parties are there, but so is the Constitution Party and RFK Jr. There’s going to be a few more potential Democrats leaking out, and a few people who would normally vote Libertarian or Constitution voting Trump. Those margins matter. Honestly RFK Jr’s role here was quite clever, he dropped off too late for the 4 or 5 parties signed up with him to do anything, and he further helped gimp the Libertarians, double filtering the moderates to Trump and helping the Leftist Faction get the pres pick.

TL:DR The lower number of undecideds also means that less of them need to break for Trump to give a win, even with the gap between Popular Vote and Electoral College predicted to shrink significantly. Polls have been very accurate at predicting the baseline support, it’s the undecideds they suck at guessing.

Trump’s baseline just hit 46.1%, 2016 final levels(not 2016 baseline that was barely 40%, big difference) and at the rate it’s slowly creeping up could be at or close to 2020 final levels, 46.8%. Harris has been stuck at 48 and a half points for a bit. Assuming this trend holds another 4 weeks we’re looking at something like 48.8 to 46.8 baseline nationally or in that general area. Some of those undecideds are going for third parties, likely more left leaning ones.

All that accounting for if Trump wins just half the undecideds the final result gap would be around 2 points, similar to 2016 if not slightly smaller, which is probably a Trump win. He’s converted enough to diehards he’s gone from needing 2/3+ to just half. And Trump won with the undecideds both prior elections. Harris is improving, absolutely, but the changing third party situation is a braking factor absorbing and neutralizing it to a degree(in 2020 and especially 2016 Trump was bleeding more votes to guys like Gary Johnson, Jo Jorgenson, Rocky De Le Fuente, and Evan McMullin. This year the third party composition has shifted left thanks to the rise of the PSL, strengthing of the Greens, RFK Jr killing the small right wing bloc, and Libertarian infighting.). So this change was a net negative and Harris’s growth has been somewhat absorbed in neutralizing this. That’s also probably why Trump’s raw base total is up, among other things a lot of hardliner Hoppean or Rothbardian LIbertarians jumped ship to him when Chase Oliver and the moderates won the party.

Take a swing state for example. Less accurate overall, but just a hypothetical, and it’s a clean “get the most votes and it’s yours” so no need to guess ratios. According to 538, There’s 4 and a half points not locked in, Harris is leading by 0.4-0.7 and it’s fluctuating day to day. Pennsylvania isn’t a super 3rd party happy state compared to some of the sunbelt, and PSL and Cornel didn’t get on, so that’s a bit more favorable. Let’s say 1 point goes to third party, a bit more Harris thanks to the internal shifts, but not by much. Of of the remaining 3.5, if 63% were to go to Trump, that’s it, even with the best case 0.8 point base lead Harris loses. If it’s more like 0.4 Trump just needs around 55% of the undecideds. That’s it. And this state is better in the third party spread than some others. Trump won more than those numbers from them the last two elections.