• thrawn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    It’s not about winning Iowa so much as it is a reflection of national climate. Though Selzer is historically far more accurate than Emerson.

    Here’s a comment about why Selzer is a standout in the context of Trump’s previous elections.

    Here’s my comment on the same thread which includes [Nate Silver’s writeup] (https://www.natesilver.net/p/theres-more-herding-in-swing-state) on why other pollsters are less reliable right now due to herding. Emerson is the second worst herder on his list.

    Now I agree, it seems rather unlikely she wins Iowa. Selzer’s numbers leave room for a narrow Harris loss. I just wanted to provide context on why this poll is vastly more significant than Emerson’s. If she hasn’t made a massive mistake, the national climate is much more Harris friendly than it feels. I won’t let myself be optimistic over this, but it makes it a lot harder to be pessimistic.

    • Throw_away_migrator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      Another data point yesterday was University of Miami (Ohio) poll of Ohio showing Trump+3 in Ohio. It’s not as extreme a swing as the Selzer Iowa poll but it’s a significant shift from 2016, 2020 and much of the polling this cycle.

      So while the Selzer poll is out on a bit of an island, the Miami-Ohio poll certainly shows a similar swing.

      I’m inclined towards pessimism, but it’s hard not to feel there’s some significant herding happening, and that the averages are being affected by it as well as some low quality pollsters flooding the data with polls