Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
She oversampled Democrats in her poll. She admitted she doesn’t even weight for partisanship in her poll. What kind of reputable pollster creates a Democrat electorate in a state that has been leaning more and more Republican? Republicans gained in voter registration since 2020.

It isn't that she is oversampling democrats, it is that all of the other polls are oversampling Trump voters to compensate for the "hidden Trump voter" but that neglects the impact of Dobbs on the electorate.

So you believe everyone else is oversampling Trump voters, based on what?

There is absolutely no chance there was a 20 point swing in Iowa between June and today. That is not possible. She has an approach, which is going to create some serious outlier results from time to time. This is one of them.

A catastrophic new landscape for the women of Iowa could absolutely produce a significant swing. Rolling back a fundamental right for all women after they have held it for 50 years has never happened, Ever.

IF Iowa decided that every man was going to donate a kidney on their 21st birthday if the state needed it, you would see a similar swing. Iowa needs to mind their own damn business when it comes to folks decisions about their own bodies,

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
She oversampled Democrats in her poll. She admitted she doesn’t even weight for partisanship in her poll. What kind of reputable pollster creates a Democrat electorate in a state that has been leaning more and more Republican? Republicans gained in voter registration since 2020.

It isn't that she is oversampling democrats, it is that all of the other polls are oversampling Trump voters to compensate for the "hidden Trump voter" but that neglects the impact of Dobbs on the electorate.

So you believe everyone else is oversampling Trump voters, based on what?

There is absolutely no chance there was a 20 point swing in Iowa between June and today. That is not possible. She has an approach, which is going to create some serious outlier results from time to time. This is one of them.

Guess what happened between June and today....a full abortion ban. so yes, entirely possible. The dog caught the car.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
She oversampled Democrats in her poll. She admitted she doesn’t even weight for partisanship in her poll. What kind of reputable pollster creates a Democrat electorate in a state that has been leaning more and more Republican? Republicans gained in voter registration since 2020.

It isn't that she is oversampling democrats, it is that all of the other polls are oversampling Trump voters to compensate for the "hidden Trump voter" but that neglects the impact of Dobbs on the electorate.

So you believe everyone else is oversampling Trump voters, based on what?

There is absolutely no chance there was a 20 point swing in Iowa between June and today. That is not possible. She has an approach, which is going to create some serious outlier results from time to time. This is one of them.

based on the various caveats and admissions that have been coming out over the past 24 hours

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
She oversampled Democrats in her poll. She admitted she doesn’t even weight for partisanship in her poll. What kind of reputable pollster creates a Democrat electorate in a state that has been leaning more and more Republican? Republicans gained in voter registration since 2020.

It isn't that she is oversampling democrats, it is that all of the other polls are oversampling Trump voters to compensate for the "hidden Trump voter" but that neglects the impact of Dobbs on the electorate.

So you believe everyone else is oversampling Trump voters, based on what?

There is absolutely no chance there was a 20 point swing in Iowa between June and today. That is not possible. She has an approach, which is going to create some serious outlier results from time to time. This is one of them.

Yes, that's entirely possible and what any good pollster should have results. How do you explain the recent poll in neighboring Kansas that has Harris only down by 5 then?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
She oversampled Democrats in her poll. She admitted she doesn’t even weight for partisanship in her poll. What kind of reputable pollster creates a Democrat electorate in a state that has been leaning more and more Republican? Republicans gained in voter registration since 2020.

It isn't that she is oversampling democrats, it is that all of the other polls are oversampling Trump voters to compensate for the "hidden Trump voter" but that neglects the impact of Dobbs on the electorate.

So you believe everyone else is oversampling Trump voters, based on what?

There is absolutely no chance there was a 20 point swing in Iowa between June and today. That is not possible. She has an approach, which is going to create some serious outlier results from time to time. This is one of them.

Is there a betting site for Iowa presidential results?

Anonymous wrote:

Deace ignores a few things.

1) Dobbs and an abortion ban that hit the state over the summer
2) Trump was TERRIBLE for famers and Iowans won't forget that
3) Iowans are generally genuinely nice people and don't like the hateful rhetoric coming out of the MAGAs.

Anonymous wrote:
She oversampled Democrats in her poll. She admitted she doesn’t even weight for partisanship in her poll. What kind of reputable pollster creates a Democrat electorate in a state that has been leaning more and more Republican? Republicans gained in voter registration since 2020.

It isn't that she is oversampling democrats, it is that all of the other polls are oversampling Trump voters to compensate for the "hidden Trump voter" but that neglects the impact of Dobbs on the electorate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iowa Poll: Democrats are preferred over Republicans in 2 of 4 congressional districts

Statewide, voters virtually tie in preference for a Democrat or a Republican for the U.S. House of Representatives, 45% to 44%.

By a 16-point margin, likely Iowa voters prefer a Democrat over a Republican in the 1st District, where Democrat Christina Bohannan and Republican U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks are competing.

By a 7-point advantage, likely voters prefer a Democrat over a Republican in the 3rd District, where Democrat Lanon Baccam is challenging Republican U.S. Rep. Zach Nunn.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/11/03/iowa-poll-democrats-preferred-over-republicans-congress-nunn-baccam-miller-meeks-bohannan-hinson/75988058007/

I did a lot of organizing and canvassing in Iowa in 2020, and we just barely eked out a Democratic victory in only one of the four congressional districts.

If the above is true, this is an enormous shift in 4 years. Huge.

More likely that is evidence this is a bad poll. The newspaper is not releasing the crosstabs.
Incumbents without scandal don't lose by these big margins. In 2022, the biggest was 8, by someone who was hurt by redistricting.

NPR has Harris +4 nationally. The Iowa poll will be proven right.

is telling as the Marist/NPR poll is, it is the move left for white men and white women that is the tell.

We are nine years into Trump’s act. The people who were uncommitted a month ago are people who do not like Trump but were not sure about Harris. It isn’t surprising that she is getting a lot of them at the close. She has campaigned specifically for their votes for three months while he has spent the past two months reminding them why they don’t like him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DIL is 8 weeks pregnant in Iowa. It’s too late for her to make any decision to continue the pregnancy if anything goes wrong. Iowa has a 6 week abortion ban. You can bet most women here are livid.

Congrats on your new grandchild!

Uh, there's a saying, don't count your chickens. I hope her DIL's pregnancy goes well. But it's presumptuous to assume. And those potential tragic outcomes are a big reason why the pro-life movement is in trouble.

It’s quite creepy that democrats see every pregnancy, even their own grandchild, through the lens of a potential abortion. Like it’s the actual expected outcome.

It’s like the potential tragic outcomes are the focus of their being.

What an incredibly weird and insensitive take. Every pregnancy has the risk of life-threatening complications.

But do you consider the possibility of having an abortion with each pregnancy?

If you don't consider the possibility that your pregnancy might not got to term or have other complications, you are not living in reality. Something like 20-40% of pregnancies miscarry.

If you miscarry, you may need D&C or other help to complete the process safely.

The ONLY people saying “a D&C is an abortion” are abortion advocates and promoters. It’s a deliberate falsehood.

People who want a total, 100% ban on all abortion do not support a ban on D&C procedures because they understand the unborn baby is already dead, and needs to be removed.

Y’all should really stop with this whole “they’ll even ban D&C’s!” nonsense. Because it makes you look like liars. Which you are, btw. But it destroys your credibility, and im fine with that.

Medical language is what it is, regardless of how you feel about it. Regardless of how much you whine or sling mud about it.

A "D&C" is dilation and curettage -- a surgical procedure to remove tissue from inside the uterus. It happens to be the most common method of early abortion procedure (non-medical, but procedural).

OF COURSE you and your elected meddling representatives are going to call into question whether that was necessary, whether the fetus had already been expelled or not, whether it was clearing out other tissue or the actual fetus. That's been done in the past, and AGs have vowed to be aggressive about it again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ann Selzer was on Morning Joe and said the biggest change in her Iowa poll was the shift in the likely voter demographics. All the Harris voter demos polled as more likely to turn out. Her poll also shows Democratic challengers ahead of Republican incumbents in House districts 1 and 3.

She oversampled Democrats in her poll. She admitted she doesn’t even weight for partisanship in her poll. What kind of reputable pollster creates a Democrat electorate in a state that has been leaning more and more Republican? Republicans gained in voter registration since 2020.

One who has accurately polled the state for the last decade. One who has correctly predicted 4 of the last 5 elections. One who was the canary in the coal mine for DEMOCRATS when she saw HRC and Biden losing ground and Trump's strength in the midwest in 2016 and 2020.

A lot of us didn't want to hear what she was saying in 2016, sorry the buck is falling on the other side of the road this time around.

+1

It would be an interesting book end to the whole Trump digression if Ann Selzer was the bellwether in 2016 that foretold doom for Democrats and in 2024 foretold doom for Republicans.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ann Selzer was on Morning Joe and said the biggest change in her Iowa poll was the shift in the likely voter demographics. All the Harris voter demos polled as more likely to turn out. Her poll also shows Democratic challengers ahead of Republican incumbents in House districts 1 and 3.

She oversampled Democrats in her poll. She admitted she doesn’t even weight for partisanship in her poll. What kind of reputable pollster creates a Democrat electorate in a state that has been leaning more and more Republican? Republicans gained in voter registration since 2020.

One who has accurately polled the state for the last decade. One who has correctly predicted 4 of the last 5 elections. One who was the canary in the coal mine for DEMOCRATS when she saw HRC and Biden losing ground and Trump's strength in the midwest in 2016 and 2020.

A lot of us didn't want to hear what she was saying in 2016, sorry the buck is falling on the other side of the road this time around.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iowa Poll: Democrats are preferred over Republicans in 2 of 4 congressional districts

Statewide, voters virtually tie in preference for a Democrat or a Republican for the U.S. House of Representatives, 45% to 44%.

By a 16-point margin, likely Iowa voters prefer a Democrat over a Republican in the 1st District, where Democrat Christina Bohannan and Republican U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks are competing.

By a 7-point advantage, likely voters prefer a Democrat over a Republican in the 3rd District, where Democrat Lanon Baccam is challenging Republican U.S. Rep. Zach Nunn.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/11/03/iowa-poll-democrats-preferred-over-republicans-congress-nunn-baccam-miller-meeks-bohannan-hinson/75988058007/

I did a lot of organizing and canvassing in Iowa in 2020, and we just barely eked out a Democratic victory in only one of the four congressional districts.

If the above is true, this is an enormous shift in 4 years. Huge.

More likely that is evidence this is a bad poll. The newspaper is not releasing the crosstabs.
Incumbents without scandal don't lose by these big margins. In 2022, the biggest was 8, by someone who was hurt by redistricting.

NPR has Harris +4 nationally. The Iowa poll will be proven right.

is telling as the Marist/NPR poll is, it is the move left for white men and white women that is the tell.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iowa Poll: Democrats are preferred over Republicans in 2 of 4 congressional districts

Statewide, voters virtually tie in preference for a Democrat or a Republican for the U.S. House of Representatives, 45% to 44%.

By a 16-point margin, likely Iowa voters prefer a Democrat over a Republican in the 1st District, where Democrat Christina Bohannan and Republican U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks are competing.

By a 7-point advantage, likely voters prefer a Democrat over a Republican in the 3rd District, where Democrat Lanon Baccam is challenging Republican U.S. Rep. Zach Nunn.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/11/03/iowa-poll-democrats-preferred-over-republicans-congress-nunn-baccam-miller-meeks-bohannan-hinson/75988058007/

I did a lot of organizing and canvassing in Iowa in 2020, and we just barely eked out a Democratic victory in only one of the four congressional districts.

If the above is true, this is an enormous shift in 4 years. Huge.

More likely that is evidence this is a bad poll. The newspaper is not releasing the crosstabs.
Incumbents without scandal don't lose by these big margins. In 2022, the biggest was 8, by someone who was hurt by redistricting.

NPR has Harris +4 nationally. The Iowa poll will be proven right.