No, Oz is not the kind of guy we need. It was never about being well-spoken. It's about qualifications.

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, Oz is not the kind of guy we need. It was never about being well-spoken. It's about qualifications.

---

if Fetterman had better qualifications, it was before the stroke..

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, Oz is not the kind of guy we need. It was never about being well-spoken. It's about qualifications.

---

The Biden standard is it?

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.

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.

I do remember a couple of your posts...they were a little depressing if I'm totally honest. Super informative, but a bit of a reality check.

All you have to do is ask yourself how independents would have voted, if the election had been framed around the performance of Biden and recent Democrat controlled Congress, instead of Jan 6 and Trump. The answer is obvious. 40% of voters say they are independent now.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

There are two ways to guarantee we lose the White House in 2024:

1. Bank everything on supporting Trump
2. Alienate Trump supporters with endless attacks on Trump

---

Exactly right. I've been saying it for years, but the party can be a bigger tent. The old school Repubs and neocons have much more in common with MAGA than they do with the Dems, and there is room for populism and pugilism in the party. As much as they despise Trump, he has expanded the base, brought in conservative blue collar workers, and a Hispanic element to the voting block that really didn't exist before. If the MAGAs and Trump sycophants could let go of their absurd devotion to Trump, and embrace DeSantis, that is someone we could all get behind.

The Dems have absolutely nothing to offer the American people. They've gone completely woke to the point of absurdity. They have alienated moderates and blue dog democrats with their policies. They have literally done nothing right for the last year and a half. Every policy has been a disaster. There is no reason the next election should not be ripe for the taking, if they choose the right candidate (not Trump).I

---

I disagree on the old school republicans (which I basically am) and commonality with MAGA. Us, old school republicans have ZERO in common with the MAGA crazies!

---

A few things...

You have advised us that you are socially liberal. That is not an old school Republican. Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, etc. - none were socially liberal.

You are wrong that MAGA has nothing in common with Republicans. Regardless of what you think about MAGA, fiscally you share much more in common with MAGA than today's Democrat party. They also share a lot more in common with old school Republicans (not you) on social policy.

---

MAGA 25-35% of the GOP base, and has always been around.

JR is just embarrassed to have to caucus with them.

Democrats tend to be able to put such vanities aside and work together. But moderate Republicans? Ironically, they can be some of the least pragmatic people on the planet, when it comes to compromising within their own team.

---

We are on the same page here! I marvel at how Dems can see the forest no matter what the trees are doing! Abrams, Shumar, Pelosi are great at keeping the herd moving in the same direction. GOP could learn alot from the organizational structure and theory!

---

The key is for Democrats it always has been about power. That's the only thing that matters. Everything else is a distraction. Republicans are more principled, so they're always in-fighting. Maybe there are no more moderate Dems, but can anyone find an example of a moderate Dem speaking out against the extremists? Probably not. For them, it is a fundamentalist religious crusade - nothing else matters but power.

---

I've said many times here: "when you get to the right pole in the GOP, you'd don't find Nazis or KKK members or any other leftist trope about conservatism. You find Ron Paul."

---

You've said it many times, and it still isn't remotely true.

---

with every post you demonstrate how out of touch you truly are.

---

Keep on Try gaslighting. It's been working great so far.a favorite of mine for months now.

---

Corrected.

---

Because Ron Paul is as far right as Republicans get? You don't even have to leave this board to find Republicans who are right of Ron Paul.

---

You squirm in print Sam, you know that?

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.

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, Oz is not the kind of guy we need. It was never about being well-spoken. It's about qualifications.

---

Like Warnock and Fetterman. Got it.

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's nothing wrong with endorsing obvious winners. It doesn't change the fact that, in the tough races that really mattered, Trump's candidates mostly flopped. The easy wins are like yardage in a ball game, a comfort to the faithful and little more than that. Calling it an overall win for Trump? That's the kind of wishful thinking that obscures the real problem.

---

Does not stand close inspection.

They flopped for sure in blue states like WA and NH. But they are blue states, right? Haven't other candidates flopped there, too? Been blue for a while now, right?

And Joe O'Dea, who was an anti-Trumper running in the middle, he flopped in a blue state, right?

tIs PA a purple state? Or a blue state? Is OZ really a MAGA candidate? Truth is, he had a well-documented problem in PA with solidifying his base. And as a candidate was he really SOOOO inferior to Cro-Magnon Fetterman? Isn't he the kind of well spoken moderate guy the neverTrumpers think we need?

They didn't flop in true battlegrounds like WI, or NC, or OH.

They didn't flop in AK, where Mitch tossed in $12m into a race the GOP could not lose, in order to save Murkowski, who would not have won anyway without ranked choice voting.

The jury is still out on Walker, right?

So we're down to really just two races. Was Laxalt really a flop? Sure, GOP won the Gov race, but by a pretty tight margin. Kinda hard to call the gap there a "flop."

So that leaves us AZ. Yeah, he was a first time candidate. He was also young, fresh, techie, and finally got his feet up underneath him. Was he so much worse than McSally?

And then there is the spending margin. What if instead of dumping $12m into AK, Mitch would have sent it to AZ? could that have closed the gap? Maybe.

Damned sure woulda made a difference in NV, though.

So yeah, no question. Trump is 110% entirely totally universally to blame for your analysis of our discontent.

---

Lots of revisionist history and excuses here. GA was indeed a flop. It's a red state, and Trump's choice is most likely going to lose. That's one that shouldn't have even been close.

---

It's a purple state now. Kemp is doing nothing to turn it red. See FL for an example how to do that.

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83There are two ways to guarantee we lose the White House in 2024:

1. Bank everything on supporting Trump
2. Alienate Trump supporters with endless attacks on Trump
Exactly right. I've been saying it for years, but the party can be a bigger tent. The old school Repubs and neocons have much more in common with MAGA than they do with the Dems, and there is room for populism and pugilism in the party. As much as they despise Trump, he has expanded the base, brought in conservative blue collar workers, and a Hispanic element to the voting block that really didn't exist before. If the MAGAs and Trump sycophants could let go of their absurd devotion to Trump, and embrace DeSantis, that is someone we could all get behind.

The Dems have absolutely nothing to offer the American people. They've gone completely woke to the point of absurdity. They have alienated moderates and blue dog democrats with their policies. They have literally done nothing right for the last year and a half. Every policy has been a disaster. There is no reason the next election should not be ripe for the taking, if they choose the right candidate (not Trump).I

---

I disagree on the old school republicans (which I basically am) and commonality with MAGA. Us, old school republicans have ZERO in common with the MAGA crazies!

---

A few things...

You have advised us that you are socially liberal. That is not an old school Republican. Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, etc. - none were socially liberal.

You are wrong that MAGA has nothing in common with Republicans. Regardless of what you think about MAGA, fiscally you share much more in common with MAGA than today's Democrat party. They also share a lot more in common with old school Republicans (not you) on social policy.

---

MAGA 25-35% of the GOP base, and has always been around.

JR is just embarrassed to have to caucus with them.

Democrats tend to be able to put such vanities aside and work together. But moderate Republicans? Ironically, they can be some of the least pragmatic people on the planet, when it comes to compromising within their own team.

---

Yup. If this board is any indication, the Never Trumpers would rather see the house burn to the ground than cast a vote for pragmatism and the lesser of the evils.

Conservatives can be a strange lot.

---

This is what scares me the most. The "Nero Effect", Trump will fiddle as the GOP burns.

---

Does that really stand the reason? Does the man not benefit from a robust GOP? Is he not harmed by a divided, weakened GOP? Has he not powerful incentive to heal and build the party stronger? Yeah, he took some shots at McConnell. Justified. McConnell is the bigger part of the failure to take the Senate, yet blamed others. But note that Trump supported McCarthy for speaker last week, stifling some of the more vocal Maga-heads to avoid a forlorn hope challenge that would only have divided a narrow majority. Trump can and does "play ball."

---

Trump wants your money. You sent him $100 million and he spent less than 10 on his candidates.
Just to recap, Trump recruits 5 losing candidates for the US Senate and that's McConnell;ll's fault? McConnell raises and spends more than $250 million trying to drag the Dear Leader's recruits across the finish line & and they were bad candidates, but that is McConn ell's fault?

When do you take ownership? (I know Trump won't, but you'll believe him until he loses in 2024)

---

Yet again we see the neverTrumper rule change to fit their needs. Trump was/is running for president, in what will be a billion dollar campaign. ALL candidates do what he did....raise money during campaign season. How much money did DeSantis donate? How much money was donated by Pence, or Pompeo, or Haley, etc....? How many candidates preparing to run for office have given away substantial portions of their campaign funds to support other candidates? (not many). That he gave away millions should be to his credit, not his deficit. The idea that it was his responsibility to fund GOP candidates in 9 hotly contested Senate races and an equal number of Gov races is amusingly preposterous.

Same for history. He did not "recruit" any candidates." He did what any responsible leader should do - let primaries run for a bit until it was clear which candidate appeared to be the strongest, and then he endorsed to clear the field. (Just as he did with DeSantis and others. Just as Obama did with Biden). He in fact received at that time some criticism for jumping in front of the band....waiting to pick obvious winners rather than a more principled approach. (again, the ever-so convenient neverTrumper double standard....) The overall record of Turmp's endorsements is highly impressive - and include many now being proposed as better alternatives, to include DeSantis and Youngkin. But rather than drone on, I'l quote Spectator, who summed up the duplicity of the neverTrumper narrative quite nicely:

"The official narrative of the election is meant to drive the right to suicide. Democrats, NeverTrump ex-Republicans, and critics of the populist right who remain in the GOP have all blamed Trump voters for the party's failure to take the Senate and claim a commanding margin in the House. Donald Trump himself was not on the ballot, but he made endorsements, and voters who followed those endorsements chose weak candidates, the story goes.

The anti-right narrative is a remarkable thing: when a candidate Trump supported lost, like Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania, it was Trump's fault; when a candidate Trump opposed lost, like Joe O'Dea in Colorado, it was Trump's fault. When a candidate Trump supported won, such as J.D. Vance in Ohio, pundits discounted the victory; when a candidate Trump opposed won, such as Brian Kemp in Georgia, the same pundits found it enormously significant. Ron DeSantis's nearly 20-point margin of victory in Florida, a big win for the right, was mostly hyped as a defeat for Trump, even though Florida is Trump's home base." (and to that I would add, even though DeSantis was EXACTLY the kind of candidate Trump is now being criticized for endorsing.)

We have to fix the problems. The REAL problems. Official RNC narrative is, as sombear has noted, "we hit all our metrics." If so, and we lost, doesn't that indicate a flawed plan by the RNC? If we accept the narrative that Trump alone is responsible for last Tuesday, in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, then the real problems slumber on into 2024 to encumber whoever the nominee might be. So, again, we see that one of the bigger parts of the "problem" are the neverTrumpers, who will scorch their own underwear to destroy the object of their rage, engaging in precisely the kind of behavior they claim renders others unfit, while the party drifts further and further behind Democrat GOTV efforts under newer/looser election laws. The Democrats got a slobbering imbecilic Bernie-bro elected in PA, while we failed to get Paul Laxalt, a former statewide elected offiicial in NV who is the son of TWO former GOP Senators and grandson of another GOP Senator who was the best friend of one Ronald Wilson Reagan. And we have people telling us Trump is responsible.

Such is beyond unserious.

---

The losers are Trump's. The real problem is Independents. The base turned out and rejected Trump candidates.
Now you want to double down on a losing strategy that failed in 18, 20,21, & 22.

---

There you go again with weak-man arguments built on spin.

2018 was hardly a remarkably bad outcome. Sitting Presidents always fare badly in mid-terms. Trump lost the house by an average margin but picked up 2 seats in the Senate. Also got Ron DeSantis elected, if your remember...in a purple state with a Trump endorsement.

2020 he lost, and we lost the senate in what was anything but a normal election cycle. Few quibble with the assessment that were there no Covid, there would be no Biden presidency.

2021 saw Glenn Youngkin get elected in VA after an endorsement from Trump and Dems mercilessly tied him to Trump.

Yes, Trump fires up Dems
Yes, Trump has issues with ceratin independents.
No, Trump is not radioactive.
Trump has led Joe Biden in polling popularity for most of the Biden presidency, and will thru most of 2023 as well.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, Oz is not the kind of guy we need. It was never about being well-spoken. It's about qualifications.

---

Like Warnock and Fetterman. Got it.

---

The winners?

Why?

4th and Inches said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I've always enjoyed whiterocks well-reasoned post. But when it comes to Trump he's living in an alternate reality.

---

Or perhaps it's the converse: if I'm well-reasoned elsewhere, I'm well-reasoned on this issue as well.

A very high percentage of Trump critique is visceral, emotional. Cold hard reality is, he is in quite a bit stronger position to win the primary here than his critics allow. Same for the general election. He IS electable. Problems? Sure. There are always problems. He is, uh, a different kind of candidate. But all that said, he grew his vote in 2020 by 7 million, Honestly. Good old fashioned barnstorming campaigning. Grew his share of vote with a number of demographics that have been historically difficult for the GOP. Incumbents that do that always win. Yeah, Democrats pulled in 6m more votes than that. From a guy who literally campaigned from his basement. Was that really 100% a function of people boiling out to say no to Trump? Or was it mostly the ballot harvesting operation I'm talking about? (those two things are not mutually exclusive.)

Biden didn't campaign. Didn't really even act like he was worried. Acted like he had it in the bag.
Hobbs didn't campaign. Didn't really even act like she was worried. Acted like she had it in the bag.
Same for Fetterman.
Same for Hassan.
Etc....
For that matter, how many Dem Senate or Gov. candidates went out barnstorming, made news with clever campaign rhetoric?

What is going on here?
(By the time the early voting period opens, Dems already know how many votes they can get. They know they CAN get enough. It's just a matter of harvesting them and dumping them into the ballot box.) It's not that campaigns are irrelevant, it's that the campaigns are a merely a constituent piece of a ballot harvesting operation. Elections aren't about voters anymore. They're about ballots. If we don't recalibrate how we run campaigns, the candidates won't matter. They don't really matter for Democrats, do they? Biden, Fetterman, Hobbs, Warnock, Barnes......that is a strong slate with wide appeal to independents???? Gimme a break, guys....

That is the message that the PACs and consultants are telling GOP donors.
GOP donors have been responding pretty much exactly as we see here: Harrumph. GOOD candidates win.
Trump Trump Trump Grumble Grumble Grumble
The GOP POTUS candidate that DOES build the ballot harvesting and small donor fundraising machinery needed to defeat Democrats is who's doing to win the primary.

What I've heard is that Trump does NOT have it in place and is being pressured to build it. What I do not know is whether or not DeSantis has a model for FL that can scale nationwide. Given the margin of his victory, I'd be surprised that he doesn't have something of the kind in place.

---

Scott Presly was on the ground in NY and FL. He should be in charge of more nationally. The GOP is mental not to have this guy on staff running ground game for the Republican national chair.

---

I have heard that but don't have any details. Zeldin is getting a lot of press. Keep an eye out for what Trump and DeSantis have to say about it.

Trump endorsed McCarthy for speaker and got MTG in line, so I would expect he'll try to do the same at RNC level. Every one of those RNC members are elected at state conventions full of a people who are more Trump-friendly than this discussion board, so Trump will have more influence than most here will think he should.

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's nothing wrong with endorsing obvious winners. It doesn't change the fact that, in the tough races that really mattered, Trump's candidates mostly flopped. The easy wins are like yardage in a ball game, a comfort to the faithful and little more than that. Calling it an overall win for Trump? That's the kind of wishful thinking that obscures the real problem.

---

Does not stand close inspection.

They flopped for sure in blue states like WA and NH. But they are blue states, right? Haven't other candidates flopped there, too? Been blue for a while now, right?

And Joe O'Dea, who was an anti-Trumper running in the middle, he flopped in a blue state, right?

tIs PA a purple state? Or a blue state? Is OZ really a MAGA candidate? Truth is, he had a well-documented problem in PA with solidifying his base. And as a candidate was he really SOOOO inferior to Cro-Magnon Fetterman? Isn't he the kind of well spoken moderate guy the neverTrumpers think we need?

They didn't flop in true battlegrounds like WI, or NC, or OH.

They didn't flop in AK, where Mitch tossed in $12m into a race the GOP could not lose, in order to save Murkowski, who would not have won anyway without ranked choice voting.

The jury is still out on Walker, right?

So we're down to really just two races. Was Laxalt really a flop? Sure, GOP won the Gov race, but by a pretty tight margin. Kinda hard to call the gap there a "flop."

So that leaves us AZ. Yeah, he was a first time candidate. He was also young, fresh, techie, and finally got his feet up underneath him. Was he so much worse than McSally?

And then there is the spending margin. What if instead of dumping $12m into AK, Mitch would have sent it to AZ? could that have closed the gap? Maybe.

Damned sure woulda made a difference in NV, though.

So yeah, no question. Trump is 110% entirely totally universally to blame for your analysis of our discontent.

---

Lots of revisionist history and excuses here. GA was indeed a flop. It's a red state, and Trump's choice is most likely going to lose. That's one that shouldn't have even been close.

---

none of thats revisionist history- he didnt proclaim GA was anything orher than unsettled.

---

My point is, GA should not have come to a runoff. It's a red state that voted against Trump's candidate.

Lake is another perfect example. Trump's darling who closely aligned with him lost to a frumpy Democrat with no ideas, and who was afraid to debate her. Just a few weeks ago you were claiming that she would win and be a potential VP candidate. And yet a reddish state voted for the frumpy Dem over her. What's your excuse there? Did that have nothing at all to due with her closely aligning herself with Trump? Was that all Democrat antics and ballot harvesting?

---

Seems that the MAGA view is that any loss is election fraud or Dems harvesting, can't possibly be the candidates that are running.

2020 was a strange election with mail in voting, COVID and last minute rule changes. I can agree that there needed to be more time to do a proper after-action. I wanted them to move inauguration back to March for that year due to the special circumstances. If we can change election rules on the fly due to COVID than we can move inauguration back to give enough time to ensure everything worked properly.

But, 2022 was not that type of election. We had 2 years and laws were changed. The election processes in place are exactly what each State wants. So, unless there is proof, don't throw out the election fraud crap. It was the candidates. Put on big boy pants and look in mirror, that is the problem if you lost.

---

2022 was different in different ways. The changes in laws were about fraud issues specific to 2020. They did not address the issue of "Get out the Vote" non-profits engaging in targeted mail in ballot campaigns (of a number of type, which most are lumping under the phrase "ballot harvesting" because that is de facto what it is.) In a sense, by "repairing" flaws in mail-in voting (rather than outlawing it altogether), the GOP ceded to the Dems sole control of a battlefield that already favored Dems. And then Dems proceeded to make elections all about mail-in voting. Meanwhile, GOP campaigns were all about "vote on election day to make sure your vote is counted." It's like extolling the virtues of the horse in order to avoid the inconveniences of the flat tire.

In other words, even in a scenario where fraud was magically prevented, Dem machinery to identify, contact, register, and obtain votes from THEIR voters is light years ahead of where the GOP is. They're getting in some cases 70-80% of their voters in the bank BEFORE election day. That's why the insider discussion is not at all focused on the candidate quality anywhere near the degree it is here or in the press. Those "insiders" are mercenaries who get paid to WIN. In their world, the candidate really doesn't matter. If they want to have a career in election consulting, they gotta win, and for that reason you will find few minds more brutally focused and incisive than a long-time campaign general consultant. Their attitude is, to a man/woman: "there will be an election in two years and I've got to win one or my career is over." And they are talking about structural problems with ballot harvesting and small donors that make it difficult to win a purple state if Reagan himself was on the ticket.

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.

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's nothing wrong with endorsing obvious winners. It doesn't change the fact that, in the tough races that really mattered, Trump's candidates mostly flopped. The easy wins are like yardage in a ball game, a comfort to the faithful and little more than that. Calling it an overall win for Trump? That's the kind of wishful thinking that obscures the real problem.

---

Does not stand close inspection.

They flopped for sure in blue states like WA and NH. But they are blue states, right? Haven't other candidates flopped there, too? Been blue for a while now, right?

And Joe O'Dea, who was an anti-Trumper running in the middle, he flopped in a blue state, right?

tIs PA a purple state? Or a blue state? Is OZ really a MAGA candidate? Truth is, he had a well-documented problem in PA with solidifying his base. And as a candidate was he really SOOOO inferior to Cro-Magnon Fetterman? Isn't he the kind of well spoken moderate guy the neverTrumpers think we need?

They didn't flop in true battlegrounds like WI, or NC, or OH.

They didn't flop in AK, where Mitch tossed in $12m into a race the GOP could not lose, in order to save Murkowski, who would not have won anyway without ranked choice voting.

The jury is still out on Walker, right?

So we're down to really just two races. Was Laxalt really a flop? Sure, GOP won the Gov race, but by a pretty tight margin. Kinda hard to call the gap there a "flop."

So that leaves us AZ. Yeah, he was a first time candidate. He was also young, fresh, techie, and finally got his feet up underneath him. Was he so much worse than McSally?

And then there is the spending margin. What if instead of dumping $12m into AK, Mitch would have sent it to AZ? could that have closed the gap? Maybe.

Damned sure woulda made a difference in NV, though.

So yeah, no question. Trump is 110% entirely totally universally to blame for your analysis of our discontent.

---

Lots of revisionist history and excuses here. GA was indeed a flop. It's a red state, and Trump's choice is most likely going to lose. That's one that shouldn't have even been close.

---

none of thats revisionist history- he didnt proclaim GA was anything orher than unsettled.

---

My point is, GA should not have come to a runoff. It's a red state that voted against Trump's candidate.

Lake is another perfect example. Trump's darling who closely aligned with him lost to a frumpy Democrat with no ideas, and who was afraid to debate her. Just a few weeks ago you were claiming that she would win and be a potential VP candidate. And yet a reddish state voted for the frumpy Dem over her. What's your excuse there? Did that have nothing at all to due with her closely aligning herself with Trump? Was that all Democrat antics and ballot harvesting?

---

Seems that the MAGA view is that any loss is election fraud or Dems harvesting, can't possibly be the candidates that are running.

2020 was a strange election with mail in voting, COVID and last minute rule changes. I can agree that there needed to be more time to do a proper after-action. I wanted them to move inauguration back to March for that year due to the special circumstances. If we can change election rules on the fly due to COVID than we can move inauguration back to give enough time to ensure everything worked properly.

But, 2022 was not that type of election. We had 2 years and laws were changed. The election processes in place are exactly what each State wants. So, unless there is proof, don't throw out the election fraud crap. It was the candidates. Put on big boy pants and look in mirror, that is the problem if you lost.

---

2022 was different in different ways. The changes in laws were about fraud issues specific to 2020. They did not address the issue of "Get out the Vote" non-profits engaging in targeted mail in ballot campaigns (of a number of type, which most are lumping under the phrase "ballot harvesting" because that is de facto what it is.) In a sense, by "repairing" flaws in mail-in voting (rather than outlawing it altogether), the GOP ceded to the Dems sole control of a battlefield that already favored Dems. And then Dems proceeded to make elections all about mail-in voting. Meanwhile, GOP campaigns were all about "vote on election day to make sure your vote is counted." It's like extolling the virtues of the horse in order to avoid the inconveniences of the flat tire.

In other words, even in a scenario where fraud was magically prevented, Dem machinery to identify, contact, register, and obtain votes from THEIR voters is light years ahead of where the GOP is. They're getting in some cases 70-80% of their voters in the bank BEFORE election day. That's why the insider discussion is not at all focused on the candidate quality anywhere near the degree it is here or in the press. Those "insiders" are mercenaries who get paid to WIN. In their world, the candidate really doesn't matter. If they want to have a career in election consulting, they gotta win, and for that reason you will find few minds more brutally focused and incisive than a long-time campaign general consultant. Their attitude is, to a man/woman: "there will be an election in two years and I've got to win one or my career is over." And they are talking about structural problems with ballot harvesting and small donors that make it difficult to win a purple state if Reagan himself was on the ticket.

---

Yup, had nothing at all to due with a guy who hovers between 34-40% in favorability rating. Nothing at all.

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, Oz is not the kind of guy we need. It was never about being well-spoken. It's about qualifications.

---

Honest question - who in the Senate is more qualified than Oz? In your mind, what are the key qualifications to be a Senator and who better demonstrates those than Oz?

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, Oz is not the kind of guy we need. It was never about being well-spoken. It's about qualifications.

---

Like Warnock and Fetterman. Got it.

---

Yes, your party managed to run two candidates even less qualified than they.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, Oz is not the kind of guy we need. It was never about being well-spoken. It's about qualifications.

---

Honest question - who in the Senate is more qualified than Oz? In your mind, what are the key qualifications to be a Senator and who better demonstrates those than Oz?

---

Other than Herschel, I honestly can't think of anyone less qualified. What has Oz ever done except make a few donations to the party? A senator should have experience with civic matters -- as an elected official, a community leader, a veteran, if all else fails maybe even a public intellectual. Oz is none of those things.

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.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, Oz is not the kind of guy we need. It was never about being well-spoken. It's about qualifications.

---

Like Warnock and Fetterman. Got it.

---

Yes, your party managed to run two candidates even less qualified than they.

---

You'd no doubt try to convince us that a prostitute is more qualified than a hooker.

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.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, Oz is not the kind of guy we need. It was never about being well-spoken. It's about qualifications.

---

Honest question - who in the Senate is more qualified than Oz? In your mind, what are the key qualifications to be a Senator and who better demonstrates those than Oz?

---

Other than Herschel, I honestly can't think of anyone less qualified. What has Oz ever done except make a few donations to the party? A senator should have experience with civic matters -- as an elected official, a community leader, a veteran, if all else fails maybe even a public intellectual. Oz is none of those things.

---

I think those are fine qualifications, but I think success in the private sector is worthy. Not sure why being a pastor makes one qualifies by your definition. It will be unpopular, but I really don't think being a veteran is qualifying. Respected but not definitive.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, Oz is not the kind of guy we need. It was never about being well-spoken. It's about qualifications.

---

Honest question - who in the Senate is more qualified than Oz? In your mind, what are the key qualifications to be a Senator and who better demonstrates those than Oz?

---

Other than Herschel, I honestly can't think of anyone less qualified. What has Oz ever done except make a few donations to the party? A senator should have experience with civic matters -- as an elected official, a community leader, a veteran, if all else fails maybe even a public intellectual. Oz is none of those things.

---

I think those are fine qualifications, but I think success in the private sector is worthy. Not sure why being a pastor makes one qualifies by your definition. It will be unpopular, but I really don't think being a veteran is qualifying. Respected but not definitive.

---

Well, in all fairness, Warnock was also a slum lord, which I would argue is a good qualification for Democrat Senator.

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.

---

Spot on. Good post.

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.

---

A vicious cycle because Trump won't stop, and his devoted can't seem to quit him. It's one of the most bizarre things I've ever witnessed in US politics. It's something you see in 2nd and 3rd world countries as they tend to recycle failed/disgraced candidates under some new political vibe of being wronged.

People wonder why I don't like populism. It's this right here. What starts as a policy or ideological movement never stays that way. It ultimately defaults to the movement being the person because of the emotional convincing that the individual is the only one capable of getting done what needs to be done. It also leads to an unhealthy level of latitude allowed in actions/words/policy changes etc. More than policy it has a Trump as retribution feel to it.

Be very careful about assumptions which happen to match your personal bias.

I stand by my warning.

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.

---

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.

---

Anointing Kari Lake as VP candidate may be the Trump cult's most horrifying idea yet.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Be very careful about assumptions which happen to match your personal bias.

---

Not sure what this means, or who it's aimed at, given the comments on this thread, but you don't have to be biased to understand why Trump and his candidates lost the last two elections, and why doing the same thing and expecting different results in 2024 is so incredibly foolish.

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's nothing wrong with endorsing obvious winners. It doesn't change the fact that, in the tough races that really mattered, Trump's candidates mostly flopped. The easy wins are like yardage in a ball game, a comfort to the faithful and little more than that. Calling it an overall win for Trump? That's the kind of wishful thinking that obscures the real problem.

---

Does not stand close inspection.

They flopped for sure in blue states like WA and NH. But they are blue states, right? Haven't other candidates flopped there, too? Been blue for a while now, right?

And Joe O'Dea, who was an anti-Trumper running in the middle, he flopped in a blue state, right?

tIs PA a purple state? Or a blue state? Is OZ really a MAGA candidate? Truth is, he had a well-documented problem in PA with solidifying his base. And as a candidate was he really SOOOO inferior to Cro-Magnon Fetterman? Isn't he the kind of well spoken moderate guy the neverTrumpers think we need?

They didn't flop in true battlegrounds like WI, or NC, or OH.

They didn't flop in AK, where Mitch tossed in $12m into a race the GOP could not lose, in order to save Murkowski, who would not have won anyway without ranked choice voting.

The jury is still out on Walker, right?

So we're down to really just two races. Was Laxalt really a flop? Sure, GOP won the Gov race, but by a pretty tight margin. Kinda hard to call the gap there a "flop."

So that leaves us AZ. Yeah, he was a first time candidate. He was also young, fresh, techie, and finally got his feet up underneath him. Was he so much worse than McSally?

And then there is the spending margin. What if instead of dumping $12m into AK, Mitch would have sent it to AZ? could that have closed the gap? Maybe.

Damned sure woulda made a difference in NV, though.

So yeah, no question. Trump is 110% entirely totally universally to blame for your analysis of our discontent.

---

Lots of revisionist history and excuses here. GA was indeed a flop. It's a red state, and Trump's choice is most likely going to lose. That's one that shouldn't have even been close.

---

none of thats revisionist history- he didnt proclaim GA was anything orher than unsettled.

---

My point is, GA should not have come to a runoff. It's a red state that voted against Trump's candidate.

Lake is another perfect example. Trump's darling who closely aligned with him lost to a frumpy Democrat with no ideas, and who was afraid to debate her. Just a few weeks ago you were claiming that she would win and be a potential VP candidate. And yet a reddish state voted for the frumpy Dem over her. What's your excuse there? Did that have nothing at all to due with her closely aligning herself with Trump? Was that all Democrat antics and ballot harvesting?

---

Seems that the MAGA view is that any loss is election fraud or Dems harvesting, can't possibly be the candidates that are running.

2020 was a strange election with mail in voting, COVID and last minute rule changes. I can agree that there needed to be more time to do a proper after-action. I wanted them to move inauguration back to March for that year due to the special circumstances. If we can change election rules on the fly due to COVID than we can move inauguration back to give enough time to ensure everything worked properly.

But, 2022 was not that type of election. We had 2 years and laws were changed. The election processes in place are exactly what each State wants. So, unless there is proof, don't throw out the election fraud crap. It was the candidates. Put on big boy pants and look in mirror, that is the problem if you lost.

---

2022 was different in different ways. The changes in laws were about fraud issues specific to 2020. They did not address the issue of "Get out the Vote" non-profits engaging in targeted mail in ballot campaigns (of a number of type, which most are lumping under the phrase "ballot harvesting" because that is de facto what it is.) In a sense, by "repairing" flaws in mail-in voting (rather than outlawing it altogether), the GOP ceded to the Dems sole control of a battlefield that already favored Dems. And then Dems proceeded to make elections all about mail-in voting. Meanwhile, GOP campaigns were all about "vote on election day to make sure your vote is counted." It's like extolling the virtues of the horse in order to avoid the inconveniences of the flat tire.

In other words, even in a scenario where fraud was magically prevented, Dem machinery to identify, contact, register, and obtain votes from THEIR voters is light years ahead of where the GOP is. They're getting in some cases 70-80% of their voters in the bank BEFORE election day. That's why the insider discussion is not at all focused on the candidate quality anywhere near the degree it is here or in the press. Those "insiders" are mercenaries who get paid to WIN. In their world, the candidate really doesn't matter. If they want to have a career in election consulting, they gotta win, and for that reason you will find few minds more brutally focused and incisive than a long-time campaign general consultant. Their attitude is, to a man/woman: "there will be an election in two years and I've got to win one or my career is over." And they are talking about structural problems with ballot harvesting and small donors that make it difficult to win a purple state if Reagan himself was on the ticket.

---

Yup, had nothing at all to due with a guy who hovers between 34-40% in favorability rating. Nothing at all.

---

white is emotionally invested in Trump, no matter how bad it gets. Trump cost Rs in 18, 20, 21, & 22.
Here are facts from real professionals at WSJ:

The GOP did well in getting out its voters. In the two main election surveys, more Republicans than Democrats turned out to vote: 36% to 33% in the national media exit poll, and 49% to 43% in the AP VoteCast.

What cost the GOP is that it lost voters who identify as independents, who now make up a quarter to more than 40% of the electorate, depending on the state. According to Gallup, in October this year 33% of voters nationwide identified as Republicans, 29% as Democrats and 35% as independents. Forty-eight percent of the self-identified independents said they lean Republican while 42% lean Democrat.

In a typical midterm, those voters should be inclined to swing against the party in power, especially given inflation and President Biden's low job approval. This year they didn't. According to the national media exit poll, of the 31% of voters who identify as independent, 49% voted Democrat and 47% Republican. In the AP VoteCast survey, independents favored Democrats by four points.

The results are worse for Republicans in key races. In Arizona, 40% of voters in the Senate race identified as independent in an exit poll, and of those, 55% voted for Democrat Mark Kelly and 39% for Republican Blake Masters, who lost a winnable race.

In Pennsylvania, 24% of voters identified as independent and an amazing 58% of them voted for the left-wing Democrat John Fetterman compared to 38% for Mehmet Oz. Ditto in Georgia, where 24% of voters identified as independent and Democrat Raphael Warnock won 53% of them compared to 42% for Herschel Walker. In New Hampshire, 43% of voters call themselves independents and 54% of them voted for Democrat Maggie Hassan over Republican Donald Bolduc.

The message couldn't be clearer. Independent voters in swing states may be unhappy with the direction of the country, but they didn't trust the GOP enough to give them power.

Mr. Trump's hand-picked candidates who supported the stolen 2020 election line to win his endorsement also appear to have driven away swing voters. The excuse coming from the MAGA media and Blake Masters, who lost badly in Arizona, that Mitch McConnell didn't spend enough money to save him doesn't stand scrutiny. Mr. Masters raised too little money himself and got little help from Mr. Trump.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-gops-lost-independents-midterms-election-voter-exit-polls-blake-masters-oz-fetterman-democrats-republicans-11668369522