Hi Carl, thanks for the post! I’m trying to understand your forecast model so I had a question. I notice you rank Montana as more likely to go blue than Texas and Florida. From my understanding, Sheehy (R) is currently leading in the polls for the Montana race with around 50-51% support, whereas Cruz (R) and Scott (R) both lead their races in Texas and Florida respectively with around 47-48% support.
It was my understanding from your work that leading in the polls at 50%+ is one of the strongest indications of being likely to win. Am I misunderstanding that, or missing anything extra that makes Sheehy’s higher numbers in the polls not equate to a more secure race?
The only variables that make it (slightly) not the case right now are:
1) incumbent (has won the state before, and not a new district etc)
2) number of polls
3) time to election
If there are more polls showing the same thing, closer to the election, Montana would be even lower
It's highly unlikely candidates underperform their poll average (what would need to happen for Dems to win MT) but that probability nudges higher when there are fewer polls.
Seems likely to me that if Arizonans reject Kari Lake, That would also reject Trump since they share much the same policy and campaign style, unless the issue is more about gender
When Trump carries Kari Lake across the finish line in Arizona you should just go ahead and retire from your failed career of predicting elections. You’re worse and more bias than that fat lady Rachel Bitecofer
Hi Carl, thanks for the post! I’m trying to understand your forecast model so I had a question. I notice you rank Montana as more likely to go blue than Texas and Florida. From my understanding, Sheehy (R) is currently leading in the polls for the Montana race with around 50-51% support, whereas Cruz (R) and Scott (R) both lead their races in Texas and Florida respectively with around 47-48% support.
It was my understanding from your work that leading in the polls at 50%+ is one of the strongest indications of being likely to win. Am I misunderstanding that, or missing anything extra that makes Sheehy’s higher numbers in the polls not equate to a more secure race?
Thanks again!
Nope you're exactly right, great question
The only variables that make it (slightly) not the case right now are:
1) incumbent (has won the state before, and not a new district etc)
2) number of polls
3) time to election
If there are more polls showing the same thing, closer to the election, Montana would be even lower
It's highly unlikely candidates underperform their poll average (what would need to happen for Dems to win MT) but that probability nudges higher when there are fewer polls.
I'm curious about your take on the flood of Republican aligned polls, both in 2022 and 2024.
Seems likely to me that if Arizonans reject Kari Lake, That would also reject Trump since they share much the same policy and campaign style, unless the issue is more about gender
When Trump carries Kari Lake across the finish line in Arizona you should just go ahead and retire from your failed career of predicting elections. You’re worse and more bias than that fat lady Rachel Bitecofer
The word you are looking for is “biased” not “bias.” Ignorant MAGA cultists often make this basic mistake. Also, you’re an asshole.
The fact that you insult her weight instead of engaging is a debate shows what a low class "man" you are.
Just block the clown. Deprive him of his audience.
She wouldn’t be fat if she was a Trump supporter tho she’s only fat because she’s a Democrat female