But…but there's that one poll that says Americans think fraud exists in some form or another.

R's lack of vote harvesting is the problem, not Trump

'Trump and his candidates lost the last two elections'

One truth about Politics, is that people like simple answers ... even when they are completely wrong.

National candidates are actually fairly complex. And so is their campaign strategy.

Seriously, who in 2018 expected Joe Biden to win the Democrats' nomination? Judging from media at that time, no one. So what made Biden an effective candidate for the White House?

In 2014, who expected Donald Trump to be a serious contender for the GOP nomination, let alone winning the White House?

In 2010, who expected Mitt Romney to be the Republican nominee? Who in 2008 expected a matchup between Senators Obama and McCain?

Things change fast.

In 2003, a lot of folks expected Hillary to make a run in 2004. And she made a run in 2008,but lost to Obama's use of media in the primaries. I think that's where Trump got the idea for 2016, to use social media to build his image.

But blaming Trump, however fun some find it and however easy it is to use MSM attacks to go after him, is not entirely honest. Yes, Trump handled COVID poorly and it came back to bite him, and he needed Establishment Republicans more than he realized.

But blaming Trump is garbage in 2022. In the first place, after his Twitter ban and a near-complete media blackout, only the Democrats' witch hunts got any noise about Trump to the public, and that is simply not his fault.

In the second place, the Establishment GOP needed Trump more than they were ever willing to admit, and idiots like McConnell blew money on lost causes while ignoring winnable contests.

As for Oz and Walker, they started as long shots if you go back to May and June; frankly given their lack of political experience they both performed fairly well, and Walker could yet win his race. Mocking them for losing was very much a NeverTrumper thing, built off the same level or maturity that believed giving power to Democrats was good if it hurt Trump's image.

In summary then, Trump hurt himself somewhat in 2020 but it's BS to blame him for GOP underperforming in 2022; not because Trump was perfect but because so many other people deserve just as much mud on their face. And like it or not, there are still tens of millions of voters who will back Trump unless they see both a better alternative and a sense of respect by the GOP for what Trump accomplished.

But that's like expecting pre-teens to think like adults, it appears.

Oldbear83 said:

---

'Trump and his candidates lost the last two elections'

One truth about Politics, is that people like simple answers ... even when they are completely wrong.

National candidates are actually fairly complex. And so is their campaign strategy.

Seriously, who in 2018 expected Joe Biden to win the Democrats' nomination? Judging from media at that time, no one. So what made Biden an effective candidate for the White House?

In 2014, who expected Donald Trump to be a serious contender for the GOP nomination, let alone winning the White House?

In 2010, who expected Mitt Romney to be the Republican nominee? Who in 2008 expected a matchup between Senators Obama and McCain?

Things change fast.

In 2003, a lot of folks expected Hillary to make a run in 2004. And she made a run in 2008,but lost to Obama's use of media in the primaries. I think that's where Trump got the idea for 2016, to use social media to build his image.

But blaming Trump, however fun some find it and however easy it is to use MSM attacks to go after him, is not entirely honest. Yes, Trump handled COVID poorly and it came back to bite him, and he needed Establishment Republicans more than he realized.

But blaming Trump is garbage in 2022. In the first place, after his Twitter ban and a near-complete media blackout, only the Democrats' witch hunts got any noise about Trump to the public, and that is simply not his fault.

In the second place, the Establishment GOP needed Trump more than they were ever willing to admit, and idiots like McConnell blew money on lost causes while ignoring winnable contests.

As for Oz and Walker, they started as long shots if you go back to May and June; frankly given their lack of political experience they both performed fairly well, and Walker could yet win his race. Mocking them for losing was very much a NeverTrumper thing, built off the same level or maturity that believed giving power to Democrats was good if it hurt Trump's image.

In summary then, Trump hurt himself somewhat in 2020 but it's BS to blame him for GOP underperforming in 2022; not because Trump was perfect but because so many other people deserve just as much mud on their face. And like it or not, there are still tens of millions of voters who will back Trump unless they see both a better alternative and a sense of respect by the GOP for what Trump accomplished.

But that's like expecting pre-teens to think like adults, it appears.

---

Do you not believe the polls and exit polls showing that Trump had more of an effect (and negative effect) than the sitting, unpopular, mid-term President?

And you're right Oz was an underdog. We all knew that during the primary, yet Trump handed him the nomination over a candidate polling very well in the general - same in AZ, NH, and GA.

sombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

'Trump and his candidates lost the last two elections'

One truth about Politics, is that people like simple answers ... even when they are completely wrong.

National candidates are actually fairly complex. And so is their campaign strategy.

Seriously, who in 2018 expected Joe Biden to win the Democrats' nomination? Judging from media at that time, no one. So what made Biden an effective candidate for the White House?

In 2014, who expected Donald Trump to be a serious contender for the GOP nomination, let alone winning the White House?

In 2010, who expected Mitt Romney to be the Republican nominee? Who in 2008 expected a matchup between Senators Obama and McCain?

Things change fast.

In 2003, a lot of folks expected Hillary to make a run in 2004. And she made a run in 2008,but lost to Obama's use of media in the primaries. I think that's where Trump got the idea for 2016, to use social media to build his image.

But blaming Trump, however fun some find it and however easy it is to use MSM attacks to go after him, is not entirely honest. Yes, Trump handled COVID poorly and it came back to bite him, and he needed Establishment Republicans more than he realized.

But blaming Trump is garbage in 2022. In the first place, after his Twitter ban and a near-complete media blackout, only the Democrats' witch hunts got any noise about Trump to the public, and that is simply not his fault.

In the second place, the Establishment GOP needed Trump more than they were ever willing to admit, and idiots like McConnell blew money on lost causes while ignoring winnable contests.

As for Oz and Walker, they started as long shots if you go back to May and June; frankly given their lack of political experience they both performed fairly well, and Walker could yet win his race. Mocking them for losing was very much a NeverTrumper thing, built off the same level or maturity that believed giving power to Democrats was good if it hurt Trump's image.

In summary then, Trump hurt himself somewhat in 2020 but it's BS to blame him for GOP underperforming in 2022; not because Trump was perfect but because so many other people deserve just as much mud on their face. And like it or not, there are still tens of millions of voters who will back Trump unless they see both a better alternative and a sense of respect by the GOP for what Trump accomplished.

But that's like expecting pre-teens to think like adults, it appears.

---

Do you not believe the polls and exit polls showing that Trump had more of an effect (and negative effect) than the sitting, unpopular, mid-term President?

And you're right Oz was an underdog. We all knew that during the primary, yet Trump handed him the nomination over a candidate polling very well in the general - same in AZ, NH, and GA.

---

** sigh **

I have studied polls since 1996, and one thing I learned early on, is that polls released to the media are primarily media devices. Most polls are either media-financed, for example, or come from universities with media-driven focus.

But to your direct question, ask yourself this: 1) what did Trump specifically do that damaged those candidates, and 2) Generally, how did Trump-supported candidates fare in elections, compared to non-incumbent candidates who did not receive Trump's support?

And no, Trump did not decide who the nominee in any race was. Primaries did that. The problem was not that Trump liked Oz, it was that PA Republicans decided he was their best candidate. Kind of like supporting Abbott for Texas Governor. He was tons better than Beto, but Abbott is far from a solid conservative, and to my mind he never answered for what he did to ERCOT. Just saying, Trump is a factor in politics, but far from the only one and no where near the Bogeyman the Democrats are selling, and sadly some here are buying.

Oldbear83 said:

---

'Trump and his candidates lost the last two elections'

One truth about Politics, is that people like simple answers ... even when they are completely wrong.

National candidates are actually fairly complex. And so is their campaign strategy.

Seriously, who in 2018 expected Joe Biden to win the Democrats' nomination? Judging from media at that time, no one. So what made Biden an effective candidate for the White House?

In 2014, who expected Donald Trump to be a serious contender for the GOP nomination, let alone winning the White House?

In 2010, who expected Mitt Romney to be the Republican nominee? Who in 2008 expected a matchup between Senators Obama and McCain?

Things change fast.

In 2003, a lot of folks expected Hillary to make a run in 2004. And she made a run in 2008,but lost to Obama's use of media in the primaries. I think that's where Trump got the idea for 2016, to use social media to build his image.

But blaming Trump, however fun some find it and however easy it is to use MSM attacks to go after him, is not entirely honest. Yes, Trump handled COVID poorly and it came back to bite him, and he needed Establishment Republicans more than he realized.

But blaming Trump is garbage in 2022. In the first place, after his Twitter ban and a near-complete media blackout, only the Democrats' witch hunts got any noise about Trump to the public, and that is simply not his fault.

In the second place, the Establishment GOP needed Trump more than they were ever willing to admit, and idiots like McConnell blew money on lost causes while ignoring winnable contests.

As for Oz and Walker, they started as long shots if you go back to May and June; frankly given their lack of political experience they both performed fairly well, and Walker could yet win his race. Mocking them for losing was very much a NeverTrumper thing, built off the same level or maturity that believed giving power to Democrats was good if it hurt Trump's image.

In summary then, Trump hurt himself somewhat in 2020 but it's BS to blame him for GOP underperforming in 2022; not because Trump was perfect but because so many other people deserve just as much mud on their face. And like it or not, there are still tens of millions of voters who will back Trump unless they see both a better alternative and a sense of respect by the GOP for what Trump accomplished.

But that's like expecting pre-teens to think like adults, it appears.

---

So, Trump hurt himself only "somewhat" in 2020, and is not at all to blame for how the candidates he endorsed - including some he hand-picked (see Oz) and required to repeat the stolen election narrative - fared in the midterm elections? Wow.

I haven't said Trump is totally to blame for what happened in 2022, but I have to say, absolving him of all fault seems revisionist history at best. What we know for a fact is that the candidates who embraced him and his stolen election bull **** performed quite poorly in 2022, whereas the candidates who kept him at a distance seemed to do ok. If that doesn't tell a reasonable person something, then I am not sure they're paying much attention.

As for 2020, Trump's incredibly boorish and divisive behavior and constant drama made America sick of the man in 2020. We will agree that the MSM was out to get him, but let's also acknowledge that he gave them plenty of material for them to use to bludgeon him with. Ultimately, his inability to control his worse impulses doomed him. So, he deserves a lot more than "somewhat" of the blame for that. Sorry, but most of that is entirely on him.

You are right, nobody can say what will happen in 2024 with certainty, but after Trump got his ass kicked in 2020, after January 6th, after his multiple legal troubles, and given his lack of popularity (favorability hovering around 34%), we can see quite a few indicators of how the guy would fare as a re-tread in 2024, and why he would be a terrible candidate.

So, reading comprehension is not your thing, I perceive.

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, reading comprehension is not your thing, I perceive.

---

And I guess being an ******* is yours?

I read fine, and typically we are in agreement. Tell me what I am not "comprehending" here.

If you do not believe the data, then there is no reason to discuss. Regardless, I think we want the same thing, and I've enjoyed the back and forth.

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, reading comprehension is not your thing, I perceive.

---

And I guess being an ******* is yours?

I read fine, and typically we are in agreement. Tell me what I am not "comprehending" here.

---

You are still obsessing on Trump.

He's not the problem, the answer, or even the topic if we are really trying to fix the problems.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, reading comprehension is not your thing, I perceive.

---

And I guess being an ******* is yours?

I read fine, and typically we are in agreement. Tell me what I am not "comprehending" here.

---

You are still obsessing on Trump.

He's not the problem, the answer, or even the topic if we are really trying to fix the problems.

---

No one is obsessing by not ignoring the massive problem Trump is. That's not to say he's the only problem, but you're living in an alternate reality if you fail to realize he's one of them.

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, reading comprehension is not your thing, I perceive.

---

And I guess being an ******* is yours?

I read fine, and typically we are in agreement. Tell me what I am not "comprehending" here.

---

You are still obsessing on Trump.

He's not the problem, the answer, or even the topic if we are really trying to fix the problems.

---

No one is obsessing by not ignoring the massive problem Trump is. That's not to say he's the only problem, but you're living in an alternate reality if you fail to realize he's one of them.

---

Don't be a Sam. Make your point on an issue without using the T-word.

Can you?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, reading comprehension is not your thing, I perceive.

---

And I guess being an ******* is yours?

I read fine, and typically we are in agreement. Tell me what I am not "comprehending" here.

---

You are still obsessing on Trump.

He's not the problem, the answer, or even the topic if we are really trying to fix the problems.

---

Whoever is the nominee they better have a better ballot harvesting ground game than the dems. THIS is the problem!

sombear said:

---

If you do not believe the data, then there is no reason to discuss. Regardless, I think we want the same thing, and I've enjoyed the back and forth.

---

I enjoy your discussion. Would like to hear what they are planning on matching the dems ballot harvesting ...if ya got any info on that.

Mothra: "Make the point that Trump is a problem for the GOP without using his name? Lol. Sure thing, boss."

Actually, the point is you can't discuss the 2024 Election w/o displaying a need to piss on Trump.

Not a good look, hoss.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra: "Make the point that Trump is a problem for the GOP without using his name? Lol. Sure thing, boss."

Actually, the point is you can't discuss the 2024 Election w/o displaying a need to piss on Trump.

Not a good look, hoss.

---

(Expanded)

Trump is not the problem.

Either Trump is relevant to 2024,. or he is not.

Obviously, Democrats want Republicans to obsess on Trump, and to do so in the petty, bitter style the Democrats have used, for success or failure, since 2015.

But if Trump is not relevant to 2024, then there is no reason to mention him. Focus on the winning issues and strategies to get GOP turnout high for 2024.

If Trump is relevant to 2024, then you need to figure out whether it's the person or the policies which won in 2016, and how to approach those tens of millions of MAGA voters you absolutely need to be able to win in 2024.

Either way, treating the 45th President of the United States like a urinal is Biden-level stupid.

Kind of difficult to discuss the election without discussing the leading candidate for the GOP, don't you think?

Bottom line is it's time to move on from Trump. He hasn't won a damn thing since 2016 and is far less popular and more toxic than he was then. The guy lost to a geriatric patient for gods sake. Why the hell would anyone want that loser and retread to run for office again? So we can get our asses kicked in 2024 just like we did in 2020 and 2022? No thanks.

There are lots of things the Repubs did wrong in the midterms and lots of things that need to be done differently. Running a toxic and very unpopular geriatric patient who hasn't won anything since 2016 is one of them.

Well, looks like Fat Orange just lost , yet another one! Lisa Murkowski beats the Trump backed candidate in Alaska Senate race. Why anyone would hook their wagon to the perpetual loser is beyond me. Rather ironic that his go to disparagement was to call people losers, don't you think?

J.R. said:

---

Well, looks like Fat Orange just lost , yet another one! Lisa Murkowski beats the Trump backed candidate in Alaska Senate race. Why anyone would hook their wagon to the perpetual loser is beyond me.

---

Using any other states system, Trumps canidate would have won as she got the most first place votes. AK changed the rules to ranked choice which favored Murkowski and everybody knew that..

Cocaine mitch is happy he spent 12 million in this race so Murkowski could keep being his lapdog. That 12 million could have pulled one of the others across the finish line.

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Cahaly explains his miss:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/11/trafalgar-groups-robert-cahaly-explains-his-polling-miss.html
Here, he explains what I've mentioned here often: pollsters have to poll the people who vote. If they are polling universes unrepresentative of who ACTUALLY turns out, the poll will be off.

"Q: This obviously is not an exact science, all this stuff. It seems like something where you need to keep adjusting all the time.
A: That's not the weakness, though. The weakness was our turnout model. You have your methodology, to collect and process your samples, and then you have the turnout, your model of who's going to vote. The two halves of the sandwich."

He's repeating my message: Democrat got their vote out; we didn't. Despite polling across all units showing independents leaning GOP, the universe of independent voters who actually voted were skewed hard Dem. Dems used the abortion and democracy themes, coupled with ballot harvesting, to hyper-turnout THEIR voters in sufficient numbers in the right places.

The Trump-challengers are going to blame Trump for the results because it's politics. And the neverTrumpers are going to harp on it. But the insiders are borderline shocked at what happened.

There's an old adage in military history that runs "amateurs talk tactics; professionals talk logistics" which applies to the conversations bout the mid-terms. Amateurs are talking candidates; professionals are talking about turnout and ballot harvesting problems.

---

Is it possible that independents and moderates were not inclined to turn out to vote for crappy, unexciting candidates who bowed knee to a hugely unpopular former president?

If Trump is the face of the Republican Party, which you've told us for months he is, does that not say something about the face of the party that he couldn't turn people out to vote, despite a hugely unpopular president in Biden, and an economy in the tank? It should.

---

again the genetic fallacy. Trump Trump Trump.... Independents, according to pre-election polls, decisively supported the GOP. Yet, the independents who actually voted broke hard blue. Why? Ballot harvesting was a big issue....Dems targeted their voters and got their ballots cast. GOP literally did nothing in response. (along with a host of other pathologies). But even that doesn't explain it.

I talked with another TX consultant today, formerly federal level (House, Senate, POTUS race), now mostly state level. So he's not following the other issues as assiduously as the national level guys closer to the problem. But he reflected what is palpable from others - perplexed a bit at the confusing data. The turnout simply didn't match any of the pre-election polls. It's like those overcast days when your GPS seems off a quarter dial, then while you're trying to mentally calibrate a course adjustment allowing for error, the arrow spins 180 on you.

The pros are not blaming Trump Trump Trump. Who's doing that are the partisans trying to take him out for 2024.

---

So ballot harvesting is why independents and moderates didn't turn out to vote, and not a lack of excitement over Trump-backed candidates. And lack of spending on Trump-backed candidates.

Yea, sure, ok. Wonder what the excuse will be when Trump takes an ass kicking in 2024? Gotta be everything other than Trump.

---

GOP "didn't turn out" is one way of stating it.
But sombear said his WDC contacts insisted they hit all their turnout metrics.
So did the GOP have the wrong metrics?
Or did the Democrats have better metrics.

They are a lot of problems to fix here, but the biggest among them is that Dems have figured out a way to get hyper-turnout in very selected demographics. They used abortion issues to get young voters and single women voters to come boiling out at rates which flummoxed the pollster turnout models (multiple data points on that).

remember discussion, here and in media, duringn Sept & Oct about how crazy it sounded for Dems to be talking about abortion and democracy? Were they blowing it? Or where they trying to stop a collapse of their base? Some pundits actually chuckled at what they thought was a strategic mis-play. Only it wasn't a mis-play. It was new and brilliant gamesmanship, highly targeted at very specific identified voters.

If we don't game up to match, we have no hope whatsoever in 2024, no matter who is our candidate.

---

Numbers show that the GOP turned out for DeSantis. GOP turned out for Youngkin before him. And the numbers show they turned out for Brian Kemp in GA, who BTW, has repeatedly (albeit gently) called bull**** on the stolen election trope (much to Trump's chagrin). So contrary to your assertions, GOP actually turned out for 3 guys who didn't espouse Trump's election denial b.s., each of whom has been the subject of Trump's ire. They just didn't turn out for MAGA candidates.

Wonder if the lack of turnout for MAGA candidates has a little something to do with the quality of the candidate and the views they espouse? Remember when you said Kari Lake would win and could replace DeSantis as the Republican darling and VP candidate. Those were good times.

Maybe that should cause a little self-reflection regarding the belief that cozying up to Trump and espousing election denial b.s. are good for business.

---

We need to know more about the DeSantis machine. He did something nobody else has done yet. I suspect we will discover it has to do with identifying, registering, and turning out HIS mail-in voters.

I will say again: AZ and GA have a RINO problem, a Republican voter who would rather see Democrats win than Republicans deemed to conservative. Warnock ran 4% points better than Abrahms with REPUBLICANS. that's the difference in the Kemp race vs Walker race. The OSO voter is going to burn it all down to express their outrage that a Republican says/believes something that offends them. And then they say they are trying to save the country and the party and the economy......

Don't be like Oso.

https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/why-stacey-abrams-ran-behind-raphael-warnock/

sombear said:

---

He also said Republicans did turn out, which they did. After all, we won the national vote consistent with Trafalgar's own polling. And your theory does not explain the ticket splitting and incumbent GOP doing very well.

And it's not true that insiders got this wrong. Unfortunately, the big media establishment polls were the most accurate this go around, and GOP insiders knew, based on internal polling (RNC and individual campaigns) that it was tight, and the only way the GOP won convincingly was a late red wave. I was the lone voice on here saying that the final weekend - obviously, I'm not patting myself on the back, I was just passing on info I received.

---

your information was correct. Unfortunately, the blue wave was already in the mail.

Democrats (and sympathetic 501c3s) invested heavily in voter id, voter registration, ballot requests, and ballot harvesting to get their independents to vote. Note how GOP commentators were alternatively confused or derisive of Dem messaging on abortion and democracy. What the heck were Democrats thinking? That was either tangential or downright conflicting with what GOP though the proper targeting and messaging efforts. Turns out, there was method to the madness. Dems weren't talking to the electorate at large. They were talking to a hundred thousand or so persuadable independents. And the had the infrastructure to get ballots in their hands. And to harvest them to the ballot box.

If we'd have had a similar effort with persuadable independents, the outcome would likely have been different. Still close. But when you're in a neck & neck race, you cannot afford to miss the way we missed.

if we do not drastically change the way we go to voters, we will get smoked again, no matter who is the candidate.

whiterock said:

---

I will say again: AZ and GA have a RINO problem, a Republican voter who would rather see Democrats win than Republicans deemed to conservative. Warnock ran 4% points better than Abrahms with REPUBLICANS. that's the difference in the Kemp race vs Walker race. The OSO voter is going to burn it all down to express their outrage that a Republican says/believes something that offends them. And then they say they are trying to save the country and the party and the economy......

Don't be like Oso.

https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/why-stacey-abrams-ran-behind-raphael-warnock/

---

AZ, GA, PA and NV had a Trump problem, and Independent voter who knew who won the 2020 election preferred not to vote for a bad candidate who didn't.

Trump lost in 18, 20, 21, & 22. Let's do it again!!

Trumpett Sara Palin got her clock cleaned by the democrat in a AK house race! Chalk another one to Fat Orange!

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Cahaly explains his miss:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/11/trafalgar-groups-robert-cahaly-explains-his-polling-miss.html
Here, he explains what I've mentioned here often: pollsters have to poll the people who vote. If they are polling universes unrepresentative of who ACTUALLY turns out, the poll will be off.

"Q: This obviously is not an exact science, all this stuff. It seems like something where you need to keep adjusting all the time.
A: That's not the weakness, though. The weakness was our turnout model. You have your methodology, to collect and process your samples, and then you have the turnout, your model of who's going to vote. The two halves of the sandwich."

He's repeating my message: Democrat got their vote out; we didn't. Despite polling across all units showing independents leaning GOP, the universe of independent voters who actually voted were skewed hard Dem. Dems used the abortion and democracy themes, coupled with ballot harvesting, to hyper-turnout THEIR voters in sufficient numbers in the right places.

The Trump-challengers are going to blame Trump for the results because it's politics. And the neverTrumpers are going to harp on it. But the insiders are borderline shocked at what happened.

There's an old adage in military history that runs "amateurs talk tactics; professionals talk logistics" which applies to the conversations bout the mid-terms. Amateurs are talking candidates; professionals are talking about turnout and ballot harvesting problems.

---

Is it possible that independents and moderates were not inclined to turn out to vote for crappy, unexciting candidates who bowed knee to a hugely unpopular former president?

If Trump is the face of the Republican Party, which you've told us for months he is, does that not say something about the face of the party that he couldn't turn people out to vote, despite a hugely unpopular president in Biden, and an economy in the tank? It should.

---

again the genetic fallacy. Trump Trump Trump.... Independents, according to pre-election polls, decisively supported the GOP. Yet, the independents who actually voted broke hard blue. Why? Ballot harvesting was a big issue....Dems targeted their voters and got their ballots cast. GOP literally did nothing in response. (along with a host of other pathologies). But even that doesn't explain it.

I talked with another TX consultant today, formerly federal level (House, Senate, POTUS race), now mostly state level. So he's not following the other issues as assiduously as the national level guys closer to the problem. But he reflected what is palpable from others - perplexed a bit at the confusing data. The turnout simply didn't match any of the pre-election polls. It's like those overcast days when your GPS seems off a quarter dial, then while you're trying to mentally calibrate a course adjustment allowing for error, the arrow spins 180 on you.

The pros are not blaming Trump Trump Trump. Who's doing that are the partisans trying to take him out for 2024.

---

It's more nuanced. There's a difference between on one hand "blaming Trump" and on the other, understanding that Trump and Trump-like candidates were a major overall drag.

The pros very much believe the latter - and many the former.

There has never in the history of our country been a midterm where an opposing party figure (Trump) had as much effect on votes as a sitting President AND had higher negatives than the sitting President. These are facts. We can blame the media (I do). We can blame Hillary for concocting Russia-gate (I do). We can blame COVID (I do). But facts are facts. GOP, Dem, and indie polls are reflected this.

Similarly, in the big races involving Trump-anointed/endorsed and Trump-like candidates, we underperformed badly. PA, GA, NH, AZ, NV, and to a lesser extent OH. And, in each case (NV a bit more complex), there was crazy ticket-splitting. There is no way around this.

Regardless of who or what is at fault, Trump is now a drag, and there is no way to change that.

Trump was never popular. He hit an inside straight in 2016 against one of the worst Dem candidates in recent history who ran one of the worst campaigns in history (e.g., not campaigning in MI or WI, instead trying to end it in FL). And without Comey's press conference attacking Hillary, he doesn't even hit that inside straight. In 2020, he got crushed by an even worse candidate, and that obviously was before January 6.

Bottom line, events and facts prove Trump is untenable. The quicker we all realize it (more importantly, he realizes it) the better off we'll be.

---

That part I put in bold is definitely a key issue. Ergo why I have said it was probably a mistake to have kept Trump on the sideline. Dems got out the anti-Trump vote anyway (as your comment alludes). All we did by sidelining him was to depress the turnout we know he can generate among our base and sympathetic independents. I mean, seriously, could it have been any worse?

And all the other stuff has some "yeah, but" factor. Trump has been, for short periods of time, above 50%, and for most of his term and afterwards in the same range of popularity as Obama. Better than Bush41. And for most of the last two years he's been running ahead of Biden. So while there is gravity to the conventional wisdom about Trump's negatives, somehow, Democrats always seem to overcome the equally heavy gravity to their negatives while all we seem interested in doing is blaming our own candidates (something Dems literally NEVER do).

For the record, I have less reservation about the candidates than I do the implicit argument that we have everything going for us BUT the candidates. It's excuse-making of the highest order. So I'm not particularly interested in talking about candidates until I hear some soul searching about how we are going to make their 40something% leader as much of a liability as our 40something% leader. In no sane world does Warnock outclass Walker, or Fetterman outclass Oz, or Masto outclass Laxalt. Dems can win a close race with a deeply flawed candidate. Why can't we?

What are your contacts saying about the way Desantis handled the mail-in voting issue?

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Cahaly explains his miss:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/11/trafalgar-groups-robert-cahaly-explains-his-polling-miss.html
Here, he explains what I've mentioned here often: pollsters have to poll the people who vote. If they are polling universes unrepresentative of who ACTUALLY turns out, the poll will be off.

"Q: This obviously is not an exact science, all this stuff. It seems like something where you need to keep adjusting all the time.
A: That's not the weakness, though. The weakness was our turnout model. You have your methodology, to collect and process your samples, and then you have the turnout, your model of who's going to vote. The two halves of the sandwich."

He's repeating my message: Democrat got their vote out; we didn't. Despite polling across all units showing independents leaning GOP, the universe of independent voters who actually voted were skewed hard Dem. Dems used the abortion and democracy themes, coupled with ballot harvesting, to hyper-turnout THEIR voters in sufficient numbers in the right places.

The Trump-challengers are going to blame Trump for the results because it's politics. And the neverTrumpers are going to harp on it. But the insiders are borderline shocked at what happened.

There's an old adage in military history that runs "amateurs talk tactics; professionals talk logistics" which applies to the conversations bout the mid-terms. Amateurs are talking candidates; professionals are talking about turnout and ballot harvesting problems.

---

Is it possible that independents and moderates were not inclined to turn out to vote for crappy, unexciting candidates who bowed knee to a hugely unpopular former president?

If Trump is the face of the Republican Party, which you've told us for months he is, does that not say something about the face of the party that he couldn't turn people out to vote, despite a hugely unpopular president in Biden, and an economy in the tank? It should.

---

again the genetic fallacy. Trump Trump Trump.... Independents, according to pre-election polls, decisively supported the GOP. Yet, the independents who actually voted broke hard blue. Why? Ballot harvesting was a big issue....Dems targeted their voters and got their ballots cast. GOP literally did nothing in response. (along with a host of other pathologies). But even that doesn't explain it.

I talked with another TX consultant today, formerly federal level (House, Senate, POTUS race), now mostly state level. So he's not following the other issues as assiduously as the national level guys closer to the problem. But he reflected what is palpable from others - perplexed a bit at the confusing data. The turnout simply didn't match any of the pre-election polls. It's like those overcast days when your GPS seems off a quarter dial, then while you're trying to mentally calibrate a course adjustment allowing for error, the arrow spins 180 on you.

The pros are not blaming Trump Trump Trump. Who's doing that are the partisans trying to take him out for 2024.

---

It's more nuanced. There's a difference between on one hand "blaming Trump" and on the other, understanding that Trump and Trump-like candidates were a major overall drag.

The pros very much believe the latter - and many the former.

There has never in the history of our country been a midterm where an opposing party figure (Trump) had as much effect on votes as a sitting President AND had higher negatives than the sitting President. These are facts. We can blame the media (I do). We can blame Hillary for concocting Russia-gate (I do). We can blame COVID (I do). But facts are facts. GOP, Dem, and indie polls are reflected this.

Similarly, in the big races involving Trump-anointed/endorsed and Trump-like candidates, we underperformed badly. PA, GA, NH, AZ, NV, and to a lesser extent OH. And, in each case (NV a bit more complex), there was crazy ticket-splitting. There is no way around this.

Regardless of who or what is at fault, Trump is now a drag, and there is no way to change that.

Trump was never popular. He hit an inside straight in 2016 against one of the worst Dem candidates in recent history who ran one of the worst campaigns in history (e.g., not campaigning in MI or WI, instead trying to end it in FL). And without Comey's press conference attacking Hillary, he doesn't even hit that inside straight. In 2020, he got crushed by an even worse candidate, and that obviously was before January 6.

Bottom line, events and facts prove Trump is untenable. The quicker we all realize it (more importantly, he realizes it) the better off we'll be.

---

For the record, I have less reservation about the candidates than I do the implicit argument that we have everything going for us BUT the candidates. It's excuse-making of the highest order. So I'm not particularly interested in talking about candidates until I hear some soul searching about how we are going to make their 40something% leader as much of a liability as our 40something% leader. In no sane world does Warnock outclass Walker, or Fetterman outclass Oz, or Masto outclass Laxalt. Dems can win a close race with a deeply flawed candidate. Why can't we?

---

Agreed. Is it possible Independents voted against Trump favored candidates?

You seem willing to look at everything except Trump

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Cahaly explains his miss:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/11/trafalgar-groups-robert-cahaly-explains-his-polling-miss.html
Here, he explains what I've mentioned here often: pollsters have to poll the people who vote. If they are polling universes unrepresentative of who ACTUALLY turns out, the poll will be off.

"Q: This obviously is not an exact science, all this stuff. It seems like something where you need to keep adjusting all the time.
A: That's not the weakness, though. The weakness was our turnout model. You have your methodology, to collect and process your samples, and then you have the turnout, your model of who's going to vote. The two halves of the sandwich."

He's repeating my message: Democrat got their vote out; we didn't. Despite polling across all units showing independents leaning GOP, the universe of independent voters who actually voted were skewed hard Dem. Dems used the abortion and democracy themes, coupled with ballot harvesting, to hyper-turnout THEIR voters in sufficient numbers in the right places.

The Trump-challengers are going to blame Trump for the results because it's politics. And the neverTrumpers are going to harp on it. But the insiders are borderline shocked at what happened.

There's an old adage in military history that runs "amateurs talk tactics; professionals talk logistics" which applies to the conversations bout the mid-terms. Amateurs are talking candidates; professionals are talking about turnout and ballot harvesting problems.

---

Is it possible that independents and moderates were not inclined to turn out to vote for crappy, unexciting candidates who bowed knee to a hugely unpopular former president?

If Trump is the face of the Republican Party, which you've told us for months he is, does that not say something about the face of the party that he couldn't turn people out to vote, despite a hugely unpopular president in Biden, and an economy in the tank? It should.

---

again the genetic fallacy. Trump Trump Trump.... Independents, according to pre-election polls, decisively supported the GOP. Yet, the independents who actually voted broke hard blue. Why? Ballot harvesting was a big issue....Dems targeted their voters and got their ballots cast. GOP literally did nothing in response. (along with a host of other pathologies). But even that doesn't explain it.

I talked with another TX consultant today, formerly federal level (House, Senate, POTUS race), now mostly state level. So he's not following the other issues as assiduously as the national level guys closer to the problem. But he reflected what is palpable from others - perplexed a bit at the confusing data. The turnout simply didn't match any of the pre-election polls. It's like those overcast days when your GPS seems off a quarter dial, then while you're trying to mentally calibrate a course adjustment allowing for error, the arrow spins 180 on you.

The pros are not blaming Trump Trump Trump. Who's doing that are the partisans trying to take him out for 2024.

---

It's more nuanced. There's a difference between on one hand "blaming Trump" and on the other, understanding that Trump and Trump-like candidates were a major overall drag.

The pros very much believe the latter - and many the former.

There has never in the history of our country been a midterm where an opposing party figure (Trump) had as much effect on votes as a sitting President AND had higher negatives than the sitting President. These are facts. We can blame the media (I do). We can blame Hillary for concocting Russia-gate (I do). We can blame COVID (I do). But facts are facts. GOP, Dem, and indie polls are reflected this.

Similarly, in the big races involving Trump-anointed/endorsed and Trump-like candidates, we underperformed badly. PA, GA, NH, AZ, NV, and to a lesser extent OH. And, in each case (NV a bit more complex), there was crazy ticket-splitting. There is no way around this.

Regardless of who or what is at fault, Trump is now a drag, and there is no way to change that.

Trump was never popular. He hit an inside straight in 2016 against one of the worst Dem candidates in recent history who ran one of the worst campaigns in history (e.g., not campaigning in MI or WI, instead trying to end it in FL). And without Comey's press conference attacking Hillary, he doesn't even hit that inside straight. In 2020, he got crushed by an even worse candidate, and that obviously was before January 6.

Bottom line, events and facts prove Trump is untenable. The quicker we all realize it (more importantly, he realizes it) the better off we'll be.

---

That part I put in bold is definitely a key issue. Ergo why I have said it was probably a mistake to have kept Trump on the sideline. Dems got out the anti-Trump vote anyway (as your comment alludes). All we did by sidelining him was to depress the turnout we know he can generate among our base and sympathetic independents. I mean, seriously, could it have been any worse?

And all the other stuff has some "yeah, but" factor. Trump has been, for short periods of time, above 50%, and for most of his term and afterwards in the same range of popularity as Obama. Better than Bush41. And for most of the last two years he's been running ahead of Biden. So while there is gravity to the conventional wisdom about Trump's negatives, somehow, Democrats always seem to overcome the equally heavy gravity to their negatives while all we seem interested in doing is blaming our own candidates (something Dems literally NEVER do).

For the record, I have less reservation about the candidates than I do the implicit argument that we have everything going for us BUT the candidates. It's excuse-making of the highest order. So I'm not particularly interested in talking about candidates until I hear some soul searching about how we are going to make their 40something% leader as much of a liability as our 40something% leader. In no sane world does Warnock outclass Walker, or Fetterman outclass Oz, or Masto outclass Laxalt. Dems can win a close race with a deeply flawed candidate. Why can't we?

What are your contacts saying about the way Desantis handled the mail-in voting issue?

---

You're grasping for reasons why DeSantis won because if it wasn't about ballot harvesting, it pretty much destroys your theory that ****ty MAGA election denying candidates were not part of the problem.

Of course Youngkin and Kemp winning also kind of destroy your theory as well.

You're missing the forest through the trees. Both the way we handled mail in ballots and ****ty candidates can both be problems that need repair.

Just fyi, Trump's favorability rating ranges from 34-41% right now. Pretty abysmal. He's not exciting anyone.

"Kind of difficult to discuss the election without discussing the leading candidate for the GOP, don't you think?"

Not at all. Just do what you keep saying matters, and just stick to the issues.

No need to be a Cheney.

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Cahaly explains his miss:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/11/trafalgar-groups-robert-cahaly-explains-his-polling-miss.html
Here, he explains what I've mentioned here often: pollsters have to poll the people who vote. If they are polling universes unrepresentative of who ACTUALLY turns out, the poll will be off.

"Q: This obviously is not an exact science, all this stuff. It seems like something where you need to keep adjusting all the time.
A: That's not the weakness, though. The weakness was our turnout model. You have your methodology, to collect and process your samples, and then you have the turnout, your model of who's going to vote. The two halves of the sandwich."

He's repeating my message: Democrat got their vote out; we didn't. Despite polling across all units showing independents leaning GOP, the universe of independent voters who actually voted were skewed hard Dem. Dems used the abortion and democracy themes, coupled with ballot harvesting, to hyper-turnout THEIR voters in sufficient numbers in the right places.

The Trump-challengers are going to blame Trump for the results because it's politics. And the neverTrumpers are going to harp on it. But the insiders are borderline shocked at what happened.

There's an old adage in military history that runs "amateurs talk tactics; professionals talk logistics" which applies to the conversations bout the mid-terms. Amateurs are talking candidates; professionals are talking about turnout and ballot harvesting problems.

---

Is it possible that independents and moderates were not inclined to turn out to vote for crappy, unexciting candidates who bowed knee to a hugely unpopular former president?

If Trump is the face of the Republican Party, which you've told us for months he is, does that not say something about the face of the party that he couldn't turn people out to vote, despite a hugely unpopular president in Biden, and an economy in the tank? It should.

---

again the genetic fallacy. Trump Trump Trump.... Independents, according to pre-election polls, decisively supported the GOP. Yet, the independents who actually voted broke hard blue. Why? Ballot harvesting was a big issue....Dems targeted their voters and got their ballots cast. GOP literally did nothing in response. (along with a host of other pathologies). But even that doesn't explain it.

I talked with another TX consultant today, formerly federal level (House, Senate, POTUS race), now mostly state level. So he's not following the other issues as assiduously as the national level guys closer to the problem. But he reflected what is palpable from others - perplexed a bit at the confusing data. The turnout simply didn't match any of the pre-election polls. It's like those overcast days when your GPS seems off a quarter dial, then while you're trying to mentally calibrate a course adjustment allowing for error, the arrow spins 180 on you.

The pros are not blaming Trump Trump Trump. Who's doing that are the partisans trying to take him out for 2024.

---

It's more nuanced. There's a difference between on one hand "blaming Trump" and on the other, understanding that Trump and Trump-like candidates were a major overall drag.

The pros very much believe the latter - and many the former.

There has never in the history of our country been a midterm where an opposing party figure (Trump) had as much effect on votes as a sitting President AND had higher negatives than the sitting President. These are facts. We can blame the media (I do). We can blame Hillary for concocting Russia-gate (I do). We can blame COVID (I do). But facts are facts. GOP, Dem, and indie polls are reflected this.

Similarly, in the big races involving Trump-anointed/endorsed and Trump-like candidates, we underperformed badly. PA, GA, NH, AZ, NV, and to a lesser extent OH. And, in each case (NV a bit more complex), there was crazy ticket-splitting. There is no way around this.

Regardless of who or what is at fault, Trump is now a drag, and there is no way to change that.

Trump was never popular. He hit an inside straight in 2016 against one of the worst Dem candidates in recent history who ran one of the worst campaigns in history (e.g., not campaigning in MI or WI, instead trying to end it in FL). And without Comey's press conference attacking Hillary, he doesn't even hit that inside straight. In 2020, he got crushed by an even worse candidate, and that obviously was before January 6.

Bottom line, events and facts prove Trump is untenable. The quicker we all realize it (more importantly, he realizes it) the better off we'll be.

---

For the record, I have less reservation about the candidates than I do the implicit argument that we have everything going for us BUT the candidates. It's excuse-making of the highest order. So I'm not particularly interested in talking about candidates until I hear some soul searching about how we are going to make their 40something% leader as much of a liability as our 40something% leader. In no sane world does Warnock outclass Walker, or Fetterman outclass Oz, or Masto outclass Laxalt. Dems can win a close race with a deeply flawed candidate. Why can't we?

---

Agreed. Is it possible Independents voted against Trump favored candidates?

You seem willing to look at everything except Trump

---

says the guy who insists Trump is the only explanation for the losses while ignoring all the successes in this and other cycles, and the myriad other deficiencies in fundraising and other areas

With respect, your case is literally a sack of excrement. It literally refutes your premise. Take, for example, Youngkin, who accepted a Trump endorsement. Trump repeated the endorsement a few times. Democrats ran ads counting the number of them, worked feverishly to conjoin Trump & Younkin at the hip. Trump and Younkin did a tele-townhall together. And Trump & others rallied around the state, to include railing on the issues you claim are primarily responsible for election losses. And, lo & behold, Younkin won.
In a blue state.
A year ago.
https://www.wavy.com/news/politics/gops-youngkin-stays-away-from-take-back-virginia-rally/

If you are going to look at Younkin, you have to cite how he won. And he won on issues of interest to voters and he had a machine to turn HIS voters out. School moms carried him to the win. I suspect he had his own vision and used consultants to pursue it, rather than let the consultants tell him what to do.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/11/18/the-gops-political-consultant-problem/

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Cahaly explains his miss:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/11/trafalgar-groups-robert-cahaly-explains-his-polling-miss.html
Here, he explains what I've mentioned here often: pollsters have to poll the people who vote. If they are polling universes unrepresentative of who ACTUALLY turns out, the poll will be off.

"Q: This obviously is not an exact science, all this stuff. It seems like something where you need to keep adjusting all the time.
A: That's not the weakness, though. The weakness was our turnout model. You have your methodology, to collect and process your samples, and then you have the turnout, your model of who's going to vote. The two halves of the sandwich."

He's repeating my message: Democrat got their vote out; we didn't. Despite polling across all units showing independents leaning GOP, the universe of independent voters who actually voted were skewed hard Dem. Dems used the abortion and democracy themes, coupled with ballot harvesting, to hyper-turnout THEIR voters in sufficient numbers in the right places.

The Trump-challengers are going to blame Trump for the results because it's politics. And the neverTrumpers are going to harp on it. But the insiders are borderline shocked at what happened.

There's an old adage in military history that runs "amateurs talk tactics; professionals talk logistics" which applies to the conversations bout the mid-terms. Amateurs are talking candidates; professionals are talking about turnout and ballot harvesting problems.

---

Is it possible that independents and moderates were not inclined to turn out to vote for crappy, unexciting candidates who bowed knee to a hugely unpopular former president?

If Trump is the face of the Republican Party, which you've told us for months he is, does that not say something about the face of the party that he couldn't turn people out to vote, despite a hugely unpopular president in Biden, and an economy in the tank? It should.

---

again the genetic fallacy. Trump Trump Trump.... Independents, according to pre-election polls, decisively supported the GOP. Yet, the independents who actually voted broke hard blue. Why? Ballot harvesting was a big issue....Dems targeted their voters and got their ballots cast. GOP literally did nothing in response. (along with a host of other pathologies). But even that doesn't explain it.

I talked with another TX consultant today, formerly federal level (House, Senate, POTUS race), now mostly state level. So he's not following the other issues as assiduously as the national level guys closer to the problem. But he reflected what is palpable from others - perplexed a bit at the confusing data. The turnout simply didn't match any of the pre-election polls. It's like those overcast days when your GPS seems off a quarter dial, then while you're trying to mentally calibrate a course adjustment allowing for error, the arrow spins 180 on you.

The pros are not blaming Trump Trump Trump. Who's doing that are the partisans trying to take him out for 2024.

---

So ballot harvesting is why independents and moderates didn't turn out to vote, and not a lack of excitement over Trump-backed candidates. And lack of spending on Trump-backed candidates.

Yea, sure, ok. Wonder what the excuse will be when Trump takes an ass kicking in 2024? Gotta be everything other than Trump.

---

GOP "didn't turn out" is one way of stating it.
But sombear said his WDC contacts insisted they hit all their turnout metrics.
So did the GOP have the wrong metrics?
Or did the Democrats have better metrics.

They are a lot of problems to fix here, but the biggest among them is that Dems have figured out a way to get hyper-turnout in very selected demographics. They used abortion issues to get young voters and single women voters to come boiling out at rates which flummoxed the pollster turnout models (multiple data points on that).

remember discussion, here and in media, duringn Sept & Oct about how crazy it sounded for Dems to be talking about abortion and democracy? Were they blowing it? Or where they trying to stop a collapse of their base? Some pundits actually chuckled at what they thought was a strategic mis-play. Only it wasn't a mis-play. It was new and brilliant gamesmanship, highly targeted at very specific identified voters.

If we don't game up to match, we have no hope whatsoever in 2024, no matter who is our candidate.

---

Numbers show that the GOP turned out for DeSantis. GOP turned out for Youngkin before him. And the numbers show they turned out for Brian Kemp in GA, who BTW, has repeatedly (albeit gently) called bull**** on the stolen election trope (much to Trump's chagrin). So contrary to your assertions, GOP actually turned out for 3 guys who didn't espouse Trump's election denial b.s., each of whom has been the subject of Trump's ire. They just didn't turn out for MAGA candidates.

Wonder if the lack of turnout for MAGA candidates has a little something to do with the quality of the candidate and the views they espouse? Remember when you said Kari Lake would win and could replace DeSantis as the Republican darling and VP candidate. Those were good times.

Maybe that should cause a little self-reflection regarding the belief that cozying up to Trump and espousing election denial b.s. are good for business.

---

We need to know more about the DeSantis machine. He did something nobody else has done yet. I suspect we will discover it has to do with identifying, registering, and turning out HIS mail-in voters.

I will say again: AZ and GA have a RINO problem, a Republican voter who would rather see Democrats win than Republicans deemed to conservative. Warnock ran 4% points better than Abrahms with REPUBLICANS. that's the difference in the Kemp race vs Walker race. The OSO voter is going to burn it all down to express their outrage that a Republican says/believes something that offends them. And then they say they are trying to save the country and the party and the economy......

Don't be like Oso.

https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/why-stacey-abrams-ran-behind-raphael-warnock/

---

Kemp isn't a RINO. He's very conservative. He just didn't bend knee to Trump.

Your mistake is believing Georgians would rather have a RINO than a conservative. That's not the case. They'd simply rather not have a MAGA election denier who bends knee to Trump. - as I've been saying all along. GA proves my point.

---

I didn't say "Georgians would rather have a RINO than a conservative."

I said there is a class of Republican/Conservative that would rather let the Democrats win in order to avoid a Republican they thought was too conservative, too flawed by some trivial standard. We have at least two of them proudly beating their chest to that effect on this thread.

The reality is, there is a fair amount of crazy on both sides of the two parties. Dems find a way to make theirs an asset. We on the other hand, cannot avoid plowing the ocean like we're doing here.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, reading comprehension is not your thing, I perceive.

---

And I guess being an ******* is yours?

I read fine, and typically we are in agreement. Tell me what I am not "comprehending" here.

---

You are still obsessing on Trump.

He's not the problem, the answer, or even the topic if we are really trying to fix the problems.

---

Yes he is the problem. Four major candidates with no political records and just a giant Trump approval stamp as their identity got beat. If you want to ignore polls then look at the vote breaking. Non Trump Republican candidates in common states and/or districts got 10-30% more votes than the failed four. It would have been 5 failed if McConnell hadn't bailed out Vance. Mike Dewine (Ohio R Governor) won 63 to 37. Vance pulled out a close one (53/47)) Even other Ohio statewide races (AG, SoS) were 60-40 R. That's the real data that manifested with the Trump candidates in Ohio and Georgia and elsewhere.

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Cahaly explains his miss:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/11/trafalgar-groups-robert-cahaly-explains-his-polling-miss.html
Here, he explains what I've mentioned here often: pollsters have to poll the people who vote. If they are polling universes unrepresentative of who ACTUALLY turns out, the poll will be off.

"Q: This obviously is not an exact science, all this stuff. It seems like something where you need to keep adjusting all the time.
A: That's not the weakness, though. The weakness was our turnout model. You have your methodology, to collect and process your samples, and then you have the turnout, your model of who's going to vote. The two halves of the sandwich."

He's repeating my message: Democrat got their vote out; we didn't. Despite polling across all units showing independents leaning GOP, the universe of independent voters who actually voted were skewed hard Dem. Dems used the abortion and democracy themes, coupled with ballot harvesting, to hyper-turnout THEIR voters in sufficient numbers in the right places.

The Trump-challengers are going to blame Trump for the results because it's politics. And the neverTrumpers are going to harp on it. But the insiders are borderline shocked at what happened.

There's an old adage in military history that runs "amateurs talk tactics; professionals talk logistics" which applies to the conversations bout the mid-terms. Amateurs are talking candidates; professionals are talking about turnout and ballot harvesting problems.

---

Is it possible that independents and moderates were not inclined to turn out to vote for crappy, unexciting candidates who bowed knee to a hugely unpopular former president?

If Trump is the face of the Republican Party, which you've told us for months he is, does that not say something about the face of the party that he couldn't turn people out to vote, despite a hugely unpopular president in Biden, and an economy in the tank? It should.

---

again the genetic fallacy. Trump Trump Trump.... Independents, according to pre-election polls, decisively supported the GOP. Yet, the independents who actually voted broke hard blue. Why? Ballot harvesting was a big issue....Dems targeted their voters and got their ballots cast. GOP literally did nothing in response. (along with a host of other pathologies). But even that doesn't explain it.

I talked with another TX consultant today, formerly federal level (House, Senate, POTUS race), now mostly state level. So he's not following the other issues as assiduously as the national level guys closer to the problem. But he reflected what is palpable from others - perplexed a bit at the confusing data. The turnout simply didn't match any of the pre-election polls. It's like those overcast days when your GPS seems off a quarter dial, then while you're trying to mentally calibrate a course adjustment allowing for error, the arrow spins 180 on you.

The pros are not blaming Trump Trump Trump. Who's doing that are the partisans trying to take him out for 2024.

---

It's more nuanced. There's a difference between on one hand "blaming Trump" and on the other, understanding that Trump and Trump-like candidates were a major overall drag.

The pros very much believe the latter - and many the former.

There has never in the history of our country been a midterm where an opposing party figure (Trump) had as much effect on votes as a sitting President AND had higher negatives than the sitting President. These are facts. We can blame the media (I do). We can blame Hillary for concocting Russia-gate (I do). We can blame COVID (I do). But facts are facts. GOP, Dem, and indie polls are reflected this.

Similarly, in the big races involving Trump-anointed/endorsed and Trump-like candidates, we underperformed badly. PA, GA, NH, AZ, NV, and to a lesser extent OH. And, in each case (NV a bit more complex), there was crazy ticket-splitting. There is no way around this.

Regardless of who or what is at fault, Trump is now a drag, and there is no way to change that.

Trump was never popular. He hit an inside straight in 2016 against one of the worst Dem candidates in recent history who ran one of the worst campaigns in history (e.g., not campaigning in MI or WI, instead trying to end it in FL). And without Comey's press conference attacking Hillary, he doesn't even hit that inside straight. In 2020, he got crushed by an even worse candidate, and that obviously was before January 6.

Bottom line, events and facts prove Trump is untenable. The quicker we all realize it (more importantly, he realizes it) the better off we'll be.

---

For the record, I have less reservation about the candidates than I do the implicit argument that we have everything going for us BUT the candidates. It's excuse-making of the highest order. So I'm not particularly interested in talking about candidates until I hear some soul searching about how we are going to make their 40something% leader as much of a liability as our 40something% leader. In no sane world does Warnock outclass Walker, or Fetterman outclass Oz, or Masto outclass Laxalt. Dems can win a close race with a deeply flawed candidate. Why can't we?

---

Agreed. Is it possible Independents voted against Trump favored candidates?

You seem willing to look at everything except Trump

---

says the guy who insists Trump is the only explanation for the losses while ignoring all the successes in this and other cycles, and the myriad other deficiencies in fundraising and other areas

With respect, your case is literally a sack of excrement. It literally refutes your premise. Take, for example, Youngkin, who accepted a Trump endorsement. Trump repeated the endorsement a few times. Democrats ran ads counting the number of them, worked feverishly to conjoin Trump & Younkin at the hip. Trump and Younkin did a tele-townhall together. And Trump & others rallied around the state, to include railing on the issues you claim are primarily responsible for election losses. And, lo & behold, Younkin won.
In a blue state.
A year ago.
https://www.wavy.com/news/politics/gops-youngkin-stays-away-from-take-back-virginia-rally/

If you are going to look at Younkin, you have to cite how he won. And he won on issues of interest to voters and he had a machine to turn HIS voters out. School moms carried him to the win. I suspect he had his own vision and used consultants to pursue it, rather than let the consultants tell him what to do.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/11/18/the-gops-political-consultant-problem/

---

This is from the Federalist article you cite:
"So the people who lost for you before and are willing to lose as long as they can preserve their situation are now in charge of your great hopes for 2014."

Just change 2014 to 2024.

I'd change it to 2018, 2020, 2021, & 2022. Trump's a loser, keep riding that horse.

With respect, try to pry your lips off Trump's ass long enough to see where voters are. Trump will lose Independents and some moderate Rs. There aren't enough MAGA to win a general election.

The Federalist article is critical of Republican political consultants. You quote and repost frequently your go-to authority, a Republican political consultant.