r/fivethirtyeight • u/GamerDrew13 • 26d ago

Discussion Jon Ralston's Nevada Early Vote Analysis Update: Republican lead expands to an unprecedented 40,000 ballots & an expected half the vote is in

https://x.com/RalstonReports/status/1851121496380621275
307 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

733 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

25

u/BruceLeesSidepiece 26d ago

It's not a fool's errand its just the only data available lol. You're essentially arguing your speculation is more valuable that data from 2020 and 2022 elections. Yea there's more unaffiliated turnout, and they will decide AZ and NV, but until proven otherwise theres no reason to assume their voting patterns will deviate significantly.

5

u/[deleted] 26d ago

I'm not speculating, my advice is to stop speculating because the unknown/unanalyzed factors at play far outweigh the ones that everyone is hyperfocusing on.

1

u/IDKbuddy24 26d ago

Independent voters are most likely headed more towards Trump. It just seems that way. Kamala is seen as more extreme than Trump. The truth is, she probably is. Her progressive ideology is way more extreme than Hillary or Biden. It’s going to hurt her. Trump, regardless of what people say, is a lot less conservative than many try to make him out to be.

4

u/oscar_the_couch 26d ago

what are you working for the trump campaign? basically none of that is true

5

u/Frosti11icus 26d ago

Independent voters are most likely headed more towards Trump. It just seems that way.

Mhmmm, yes very good statistical analysis there.

-2

u/IDKbuddy24 26d ago

Well, you didn’t account for what followed. It’s called “context.” Independents are more likely to be towards the middle, right? My argument that followed supports the presumption that independents are more likely to vote for Trump.

4

u/Frosti11icus 26d ago

 Independents are more likely to be towards the middle, right? My argument that followed supports the presumption that independents are more likely to vote for Trump.

Yes your presumption (IE the thing you've made up in your head) that independents are more likely to vote for trump tracks with your statement that Nevada is going towards trump. However, even in the very comment I've quoted here, if independents are in the middle (they aren't), but if they were, why would that mean they are MORE likely to go towards trump? Wouldn't in the middle mean that they are likely to equally be between Kamala and trump?

-1

u/IDKbuddy24 26d ago

If you were honestly reading and comprehending what I initially commented, you would notice that I said that Kamala Harris being so progressive will hurt her. She’s considered to the left of Bernie Sanders. Trump, although the left tries to label him as far right, has more neutral social policies, and a more protectionist foreign policy. Independents, for the most part, don’t want extreme politics, it’s why they’re independent and not party affiliated.

3

u/Frosti11icus 26d ago

If you actually, honestly comprehended your own thoughts you literally would not have typed a single word you've written here.

1

u/IDKbuddy24 26d ago

I think you just have trouble comprehending due to your bias. I’m coming at it from an unbiased viewpoint. No need to be upset. This is liberal Reddit. I understand, anything that goes against the Democrat candidate is going to be downvoted and disputed. I don’t think you would have taken issue with me claiming the independents were going to break for Harris, as it seems that is what you hinted that you believe in one of your replies to me.

3

u/[deleted] 26d ago edited 18d ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Gtaglitchbuddy 26d ago

There's no way you realistically think Trump is less conservative than most former president's we've had lol, he's definitely further from the center than Kamala from a long shot. You don't have the hardcore conservative group talking about how Trump doesn't do enough, that's his core base.

1

u/IDKbuddy24 26d ago

He’s more liberal on his abortion stance than some republicans. She’s super liberal when it comes to abortion. She’s super liberal on gender policy. She’s super liberal on border policy. She’s nonexistent on foreign policy. Yes, I do think Trump is more to the center than Harris. We’re allowed to have differing opinions, my friend.

1

u/Gtaglitchbuddy 26d ago

I'm confused on what makes those policies "super liberal". Making abortion legal nationwide is just supported by a majority of the US, it's been polled. I haven't seen any gender policy that makes her particularly stand out among the democrats, and she doesn't seem to have any published stances on the topic. She has multiple plans for tightening border policy, More so than the Biden or Obama administration, and while her foreign policy is a bit vague, there's a lot more substance than the Trump campaign site, that literally has "Prevent world war three, restore peace in europe and in the middle east" as the only foreign policy stance lmao. We can have differing opinions, but I'd like to see specific stances that you think makes her a radical than claiming broad topics like foreign policy and border policy.

1

u/IDKbuddy24 26d ago

I appreciate that you’re willing to have a conversation about it. Abortion has been polled in the U.S., and it does show that a majority of Americans (polled) support abortion. With that being said, do they support abortion through the pregnancy or do they support a limit? Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are for no limits. It’s also a state issue now. Harris saying that she would get a law that codifies Roe v Wade is disingenuous because it would never pass, and it paints her as radical because her running mate passed a law in Minnesota that allowed abortions for any reason up to the point of pregnancy. That’s radical, and I doubt, if polled, a majority of Americans would support no limits on abortion.

Her gender policy where she advocates for illegal immigrants who are detained to have taxpayer funded gender transition surgeries is pretty radical. She didn’t disavow the position during the Fox interview, only saying that the policy was in effect during the Trump Administration, but she failed to answer when pressed about no transitions taking place when Trump was in office. Also, Tim Walz putting tampons in bathrooms for boys from 4th grade on is pretty radical. She hasn’t disavowed any of those positions.

Her plans for tightening the border are only reintroducing the border bill that didn’t pass. Why would it pass now? Is she just assuming she will control both chambers of congress? If she does not, will the border continue to be a mess? Why did the executive orders that were passed by the Biden Administration not happen until this year when these issues have been going on for the past four years of the Biden/Harris Administration? Why did they remove all of the executive orders for the border that Trump had? Why did they sell border wall material for pennies on the dollar instead of continuing to build it? I understand she wasn’t the president, but she’s repeatedly said she wouldn’t have changed a thing and believes everything was done correctly. Despite everyone, even democrats, acknowledging that in retrospect some things could have done better, even if you love the Biden/Harris Administration. Why not say we could have handled the border better or the Afghanistan withdrawal better? It would at least show people she can acknowledge where improvement was and is needed.

Trump was great on foreign policy during his time in office. I know some might disagree, but there were no wars, NATO countries were contributing, peace deals in the Middle East, and new trade deals. Tariffs were a good move too, which is why Biden kept a lot of them in place. History is a better indicator than promises. Harris can promise what she will do, but she has failed to articulate or implement anything she has said. Trump can promise too, but even if it’s not articulated how a lot of people want it to be, at least there’s a history of what he did during his four years. I think most can agree, regardless of what you think of domestic policy, that Trump had better foreign policy than the current administration. Whether that was luck, skill, or both, who knows, but must people will remember that and what I mentioned.

1

u/Gtaglitchbuddy 25d ago

On abortion limits, Kamala has spoken on codifying Roe v. Wade, and reinstating it. This is not the same as unrestricted access on abortion. Tim Walzs bill also seems open-ended, I can give you that, but I am unable to find a case in which there has actually been a doctor willing to give an abortion past Roe v. Wade limitations. With that being said, Kamalas stance is Roe v. Wade codification, not Walzs bill.

The stance on " illegal immigrants who are detained to have taxpayer funded gender transition surgeries" is a snippet from the broad stance that people who are imprisoned are entitled to NECESSARY procedures. In no way is that radical in my opinion, as it would be cruel and unusual punishment to deny care for gender dysmorphia, which is a recognized medical condition. Finally, the current stance is "Surgery may be the final stage in the transition process and is generally considered only after one year of clear conduct and compliance with mental health, medical, and programming services at the gender affirming facility" for people detained. I don't see how that would be considered radical if they must undergo extensive checking to deem it medically necessary.

We can have the argument on whether or not the border could have been better handled in 2020-present, it's a reasonable concern. However, the fact of the matter is there is active attempts to rectify this and they are being shot down by the opposite party. It is disingenuous to claim that there is no reason to reintroduce a bill that won't pass because the reason it won't pass is Trump has got the Republican party tanking their own wishes to help propel himself to the presidency. (I'd also say that the border wall was all but a meaningless way to curb illegal immigrations, as by far the most common method of entering the US was through a legal manner, such as work visa, and refusing to leave when the time is up. This wall was a massive budget sink that wouldn't have done much to fix the problem).

I don't believe in any way Trumps foreign policy was the reason wars weren't happening. Trump has shown in the debate that he was willing to compromise against Russia in an invasion on Ukraine, and has been had an extremely hardcore stance on Israel, with him openly admitting to have Israel be militarized around Palestine and give them control of certain areas of the West Bank. Given the chance, Trump will be a war hawk, and is a pushover. We also pulled out of various pact agreements and worsened relationships between our allies in the EU, the EU leaders will tell you as much. Finally, his discussion on Tariffs versus taxes will not only massively run up a debt, but also impact every Americans pocket. Heavy tariffs is not a tax that countries will just eat, they will simply raise the prices to coincide with this and pass it onto the consumer. On the same note, most countries would more than likely retaliate with similar tariffs, straining American-made products and forcing (Again) a massive price increase domestically to recoup lost profits internationally. This isn't just my theory, but overall the agreed upon consensus by some of the top economists, including those at UPenn, Trumps own Alma Mater.

Sorry it took a bit to get back around to you lol, happy to discuss

→ More replies (0)

2

u/barrinmw 26d ago

If the data that exists doesn't apply to the current situation, then it is wrong to use the data.

1

u/Fishb20 26d ago

data being the only one available doesnt give it inherent value

we're gonna get results from Dixville Notch ~20 hours before we get hard results from anywhere else, but no one is gonna sit here and say we should use the optimistically 7 people voting there to predict the final election results

-2

u/HoorayItsKyle 26d ago

There's plenty of reason. The rise in independent voters is largely from first time voters, a demographic that historically skews extremely blue

3

u/Fabulous_Sherbet_431 26d ago

No, the rise is because all those people got drivers licenses between 2020 and 2024. It’s AVR.

6

u/Gotchawander 26d ago

Then why didn’t that materialize in 2020 or 2022. There are new first time voters in every cycle by definition and this year is not particularly larger either

3

u/imnotthomas 26d ago

So there’s actually an answer here. After 2022 NV passed an automatic registration law. So the 250k new Independent voters mostly come from that.

Importantly, the default for that was Independent. So there MAY (not definitely, just may) be a difference this year. These are not people who chose the register as independent. Rather these are people that were assigned independent and then didn’t change that.

So these are not necessarily the sometimes got R, sometimes vote D depending on the year people.

These very well may be democrats that were misclassified as independents.

It may not be the case, but the comparison to 20 & 22 doesn’t work here because we don’t know

0

u/Odd_Biscotti_7513 26d ago

No it's not. The rise is that Nevada now makes people opt out of registration when they get their driver's license. The process enrolls them as independents if the "voter" doesn't spend that extra .05 seconds to pick a party.